Democracy Now! - Indigenoushttp://www.democracynow.org/topics/indigenous
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specificationmail@democracynow.org (Democracy Now!)http://www.democracynow.org/images/dn-logo-for-podcast.png?201507101653http://www.democracynow.org/topics/indigenous
144144Democracy Now! - Indigenousen-USDemocracy Now! - Indigenous"Cultural Genocide": Landmark Report Decries Canada's Forced Schooling of Indigenous Childrenhttp://www.democracynow.org/2015/6/3/cultural_genocide_landmark_report_decries_canadas
tag:democracynow.org,2015-06-03:en/story/e2ff71 JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada has concluded that country&#8217;s decades-long policy of forcibly removing indigenous children from their families and placing them in state-funded residential Christian schools amounted to, quote, &quot;cultural genocide.&quot; After a six-year investigation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report concluded: quote, &quot;The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to aboriginal people and gain control over their lands and resources. If every aboriginal person had been &#39;absorbed into the body politic,&#39; there would be no reserves, no treaties and no aboriginal rights.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : The first schools opened in 1883. The last one closed in 1998. During that time, over 150,000 indigenous children were sent away to rid them of their native cultures and languages and integrate them into mainstream Canadian society. Many students recall being beaten for speaking their native languages and losing touch with their parents and customs. The report also documents widespread physical, cultural and sexual abuse at the schools. It was based in part on testimony from 7,000 survivors. This is Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
JUSTICE MURRAY SINCLAIR : The residential school experience is clearly one of the darkest, most troubling chapters in our collective history. In the period from Confederation until the decision to close residential schools was taken in this country in 1969, Canada clearly participated in a period of cultural genocide. We heard of the effects of over 100 years of mistreatment of more than 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children placed in these schools. Removed from their families and home communities, seven generations of aboriginal children were denied their identity. We heard how, separated from their language, their culture, their spiritual traditions and their collective history, children became unable to answer questions as simple as &quot;Where do I come from?&quot; &quot;Where am I going?&quot; &quot;Why am I here?&quot; and &quot;Who am I?&quot;
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of Canada&#8217;s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also said he suspects as many as 7,500 indigenous children died at the residential schools, but the exact figure may never be known. The Canadian government stopped recording the deaths in 1920 after the chief medical officer at Indian Affairs suggested children in the schools were dying at an alarming rate.
AMY GOODMAN : To talk more about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission&#8217;s findings, we go to Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada to talk to Pamela Palmater, associate professor and chair in indigenous governance at Ryerson University. She is a Mi&#8217;kmaq lawyer, an Idle No More activist and author of Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging .
Welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start, Pamela, by talking—by responding to the commission&#8217;s report? Were you surprised by what they found?
PAMELA PALMATER : No, I wasn&#8217;t surprised. I mean, this is something that indigenous peoples have known since the inception of residential schools. The federal government wasn&#8217;t surprised, the RCMP or churches. Everybody in a position of power has long known about the crimes and abuses that happened at residential schools. We&#8217;re quite thankful for the bravery of the survivors to come forward and make sure that it was documented. This is a critical piece. And the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did an incredible job in the face of many barriers put forward by the federal government to make sure that their stories were heard and that as much documented evidence was contained in the report. And I think that&#8217;s incredibly important for Canadians, because we know what happened to us, but Canadians don&#8217;t know what happened, and they don&#8217;t understand the culpability of the federal government and churches in this regard.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the issue of the conclusion of cultural genocide, do you have any concerns or qualms about that specifically?
PAMELA PALMATER : Yeah. Well, I mean, I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission went about as far as they felt comfortable in naming it cultural genocide. But I—it&#8217;s just genocide through and through. If you look at the U.N. definition on genocide, it meets every single one of those factors. And there&#8217;s nothing cultural about it. They weren&#8217;t killing us because of our culture. They were killing us because we were Indians, and we stood in the way of accessing all of the lands and resources and settlement in this country.
Think about it. All of the overrepresentation in this country in prisons—you know, some prisons have as high as 60 percent indigenous peoples—that&#8217;s not because of our culture; it&#8217;s because we&#8217;re Indians, and we have rights and aboriginal rights that still stand in the way of unfettered resource development. Why are our kids overrepresented in Child and Family Services, to the tune of 30,000 to 40,000 in Canada? Here in Manitoba, 90 percent of all kids in care are indigenous. It&#8217;s not because of their culture; it&#8217;s because of who they are as Indians and that we&#8217;re the indigenous peoples here, and we have rights to protect this territory, and we&#8217;re essentially the last stand against complete, unfettered development here in this country.
And so, if you look at it across the board, while they may have characterized it in terms of, you know, assimilating culture, you wouldn&#8217;t have a death rate of upwards of 40 percent in some of those schools if it was just about culture. It would have been more aggressive education tactics, both in those schools and in the communities. If you have a death rate that&#8217;s higher than those who enlisted in World War II, this wasn&#8217;t about culture.
AMY GOODMAN : I want to turn to survivor testimony recorded by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada. This is William Nelson describing his experience being sent to a residential school.
WILLIAM NELSON : We arrived to the dorm in the middle of the night. The supervisor for the junior boys showed me my bed, the rows of beds where other boys were asleep. I thought they were asleep, but once the supervisor closed the door, all the heads popped up. And the boys all stood around to look at the new kid. That was me. Around the second night or so, the supervisor opened the dorm door, which he caught me sitting up in bed. He says, &quot;We have rules here, if you&#8217;re caught sitting up in bed. You should be sleeping.&quot; Because I was sitting up, I had to be punished. The punishment was getting strapped and whipped with a belt. I believe it was about seven times that I was whipped in the back.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s William Nelson. Another survivor of the residential schools named MaryAnn Sam of Vancouver Island also spoke at the Truth and Reconciliation sharing circle.
MARYANN SAM : From my experience while I was at the residential school, my sisters and I were led to believe that our mother was killed in a car accident. But that was not true. She was in the accident, but the ministry and families had taken us, hid me and my sisters for years. When my mom was well enough to care for us again, she searched and searched for us. We were once again reunited. She returned us home, a single parent. And again, it was her struggle that provided us strength to love and respect others. It was then, when we returned home, that we were brought to the day school again with priests and nuns. So we thought this was the way of life. But we enjoyed where we were, back with our community, family and children that we knew. But the experience here was similar, not again to use our language, not to use our cultural ways, because that was not for who we were. In my community, it was our mothers who fought for our school and went about to teach our language, our culture.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s MaryAnn Sam of Vancouver Island speaking at the Truth and Reconciliation sharing circle. Professor Palmater, she says, &quot;My sisters and I were led to believe our mother was killed in a car accident. But that wasn&#8217;t true.&quot; And respond to what both William and she were saying.
PAMELA PALMATER : Well, I mean, these stories are quite common, and stories even worse than this are quite common, the amount of intentional lying and deception and keeping parents away from children. So it wasn&#8217;t like parents were just enrolling these children, they were going to school, and there were some isolated incidents of bad things happening. We&#8217;re talking about wholescale theft of children from communities, in large part against the will of the parents, and parents were kept away from those schools. And even children who ran away were brought back oftentimes by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, despite the allegations of what was happening in those schools.
And that&#8217;s the real crime here, because whether or not people agree that this is genocide, it was always against the law to kidnap children, to assault them, to assault them with deadly weapons, to rape, torture them, use electric chairs on them, to deny them food and water, to beat them to such an extent that some died, to starve them until some died. All of these things were crimes then, just as it is now. And nobody was prosecuted, despite the fact that the RCMP knew, the federal government knew, and the churches knew exactly what was happening.
And I think really illustrative of that are the government&#8217;s own documents. You had doctors coming to the federal government, saying, &quot;You have extremely high death rates in the schools.&quot; And the federal government&#8217;s response was: &quot;Well, that doesn&#8217;t justify a change in our policy, because the overall objective is, quote-unquote, &#39;the final solution.&#39;&quot; And we&#8217;ve heard those words before. So we know exactly what the intention was. And I know there was a focus on culture and that people were abused and beaten for speaking their language and culture, and they were clearly denied their identity. But for many of these children, upwards of 40 percent, they were denied their right to live. And that goes far beyond culture. Think about at the same time the forced sterilizations that were happening against indigenous women and little girls all across the country. Sterilization has nothing to do with one&#8217;s culture, but, in essence, the one&#8217;s right to continue on in their cultural group or nation-based group. The objective was to get rid of Indians in whatever way possible. Culture was one aspect of it, but also denying them the right to live or to procreate was an essential part of this.
And I think what&#8217;s really important for people around the world to understand is that residential schools didn&#8217;t really stand in isolation. It was in addition to the forced sterilizations, the scalping bounties, all of the—overrepresenting our people in prison, stealing them and putting them in Child and Family Services, the thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women in this country that go unresolved, and no steps taken to prevent these actions, and that this is ongoing. It would be a terrible mistake to historicize this and say, &quot;Well, this happened a long time ago. We now know what happened. Let&#8217;s apologize and move on.&quot; It is ongoing.
When they closed residential schools, their very next policy was known as the Sixties Scoop, where they actually took more children from First Nations than during the residential school period, which is why we have now 30 to 40 percent of our children in care. They&#8217;re still taking our children. They&#8217;re still trying to raise them in non-indigenous families. And many of these children end up as murdered or missing indigenous women, or they end up in the prison system. And that&#8217;s—this legacy of the residential schools is ongoing. It&#8217;s very much in the present. You can track the survivors of residential schools to kids in care, to people in prison, to those who are homeless, to those who have poor health. All of these things are very much in the present. So we have to take action now to address the ongoing problems that were started by the residential school and have never stopped and continue to this day in just different terminology and in different policies.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Paula Palmater, I wanted to ask you about the role of the churches in this. It wasn&#8217;t just the government. Which churches? What specifically did they do? And what has been their admission of—their own admission of their culpability in this cultural genocide, or this general genocide, as you say?
PAMELA PALMATER : Well, I think it&#8217;s varied. So, all of the churches that were here were involved in this. It looks like the majority of these schools were run by the Catholic Church. I understand that there—at a local level, there has been difficulty in obtaining records. Often churches didn&#8217;t make note of the children who died in those schools. So we don&#8217;t even have a complete record of those—how many that did die. We know for sure it&#8217;s at least 6,000 to 7,000, but it could be even higher. Many churches had unmarked graves. And we&#8217;re in a situation now where many residential school survivors and First Nations are demanding that churches come forward and give us all of their documentation, at every level, no matter where the documents have been kept, about who knew what and when, who was involved, and primarily to bring closure for many of these families to know where their child last spent their days, where their remains could possibly be. And all of that information has not been forthcoming from the churches, especially at an administrative or national or international level.
At the local level, however, you do see local churches trying to take steps to make amends, to try to have a better relationship with indigenous peoples, and trying to work together to support different initiatives on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So we have Cree people who are walking across the country for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission events, and their walk was supported by some of the churches, and things like that. But I think at an institutional level, the churches have a lot more work to do, and they need to make some very specific and targeted apologies, and make amends, because, as we know, apology means nothing unless you&#8217;re going to try to make amends to right the wrongs that happened in the past. And so, they have a clear responsibility, in addition to the federal government, to support things like indigenous languages and cultures and education, and trying to find a way to both identify these children and return them to their families and communities. That&#8217;s incredibly important.
AMY GOODMAN : Last year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police revealed at least 1,181 native women and girls were killed or went missing between 1980 and 2012. The new Truth and Reconciliation Commission report made a link between the residential schools with the missing and murdered women. The report states, quote, &quot;The available information suggests a devastating link between the large numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and the many harmful background factors in their lives. The complex interplay of factors—many of which are part of the legacy of residential schools—needs to be examined, as does the lack of success of police forces in solving these crimes against Aboriginal women,&quot; unquote. Paula Palmater, can you talk about what is being planned now? I mean, that&#8217;s a government commission. What is the follow-up at this point?
PAMELA PALMATER : Well, there is no follow-up. And probably one of the most insulting, shameful things that happened yesterday was when the Truth and Reconciliation commissioner, Justice Murray Sinclair, got up and said there&#8217;s a clear link between what happened in residential schools and the vulnerability of our indigenous women and girls that go murdered and missing, and that he recommended and supported all of the calls for a national inquiry: Everyone stood up, gave him a standing ovation, except the minister of Indian affairs.
And that&#8217;s extremely significant, if the minister of Indian affairs can&#8217;t be supportive of finding justice for indigenous women and girls, who go murdered and missing at an extremely alarming rate. Here in Manitoba, it&#8217;s 50 percent. They only make up 4 percent of the population, but 50 percent of all indigenous women and—of all women and girls that go murdered or missing are indigenous. And so we have some significant issues across the country. Again, it&#8217;s not just about our culture. Our very lives are at stake.
And so, the minister of Indian affairs didn&#8217;t clap. He didn&#8217;t give a standing ovation. And this is in line with what the prime minister has said. He has said, time and time again, an inquiry into why indigenous women go murdered and missing is not high on our radar. He doesn&#8217;t consider it to be an issue. And he&#8217;s really out of touch with all of the research. There&#8217;s been at least 50 reports with over 700 recommendations on how to deal with this. And the United Nations, various human rights bodies, including CEDAW , have come out with reports which have researched and studied this and said this is a problem.
The police are not taking action. There&#8217;s lots of socioeconomic conditions of poverty that make our indigenous women and girls vulnerable, some stemming from residential schools, some stemming from Canada&#8217;s very purposeful, targeted, racist and discriminatory laws and policies, and that a national inquiry is recommended to get at the root of it so that we can come up with solutions to prevent it from happening to begin with. It&#8217;s no good to have a police force who&#8217;s now willing to take action to investigate murders; we want to stop those from happening in the beginning.
And I think it&#8217;s critical that this Truth and Reconciliation report tied all of these things together, that residential schools didn&#8217;t just happen as a moment in history. It&#8217;s ongoing legacy. And that&#8217;s also in line with some of the other recommendations around the overrepresentation of our people in prisons. Justice Murray Sinclair recommended that action be taken right away to look at all of the criminalization data and take action to stop this from happening—the same with Child and Family Services, the same with all of the socioeconomic problems that make our people vulnerable to begin with.
AMY GOODMAN : Paula Palmater, we want to thank you very much for being with us, associate professor and chair in indigenous governance at Ryerson University. She is a Mi&#8217;kmaq lawyer, an Idle No More activist and author of Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging . Thanks so much for joining us from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Sepp Blatter to step down. We&#8217;ll speak with an Australian soccer official who blew the whistle on FIFA . Stay with us. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada has concluded that country’s decades-long policy of forcibly removing indigenous children from their families and placing them in state-funded residential Christian schools amounted to, quote, "cultural genocide." After a six-year investigation, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report concluded: quote, "The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to aboriginal people and gain control over their lands and resources. If every aboriginal person had been 'absorbed into the body politic,' there would be no reserves, no treaties and no aboriginal rights."

AMYGOODMAN: The first schools opened in 1883. The last one closed in 1998. During that time, over 150,000 indigenous children were sent away to rid them of their native cultures and languages and integrate them into mainstream Canadian society. Many students recall being beaten for speaking their native languages and losing touch with their parents and customs. The report also documents widespread physical, cultural and sexual abuse at the schools. It was based in part on testimony from 7,000 survivors. This is Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

JUSTICEMURRAYSINCLAIR: The residential school experience is clearly one of the darkest, most troubling chapters in our collective history. In the period from Confederation until the decision to close residential schools was taken in this country in 1969, Canada clearly participated in a period of cultural genocide. We heard of the effects of over 100 years of mistreatment of more than 150,000 First Nations, Inuit and Métis children placed in these schools. Removed from their families and home communities, seven generations of aboriginal children were denied their identity. We heard how, separated from their language, their culture, their spiritual traditions and their collective history, children became unable to answer questions as simple as "Where do I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why am I here?" and "Who am I?"

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Justice Murray Sinclair, chair of Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, also said he suspects as many as 7,500 indigenous children died at the residential schools, but the exact figure may never be known. The Canadian government stopped recording the deaths in 1920 after the chief medical officer at Indian Affairs suggested children in the schools were dying at an alarming rate.

AMYGOODMAN: To talk more about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s findings, we go to Winnipeg, Manitoba, in Canada to talk to Pamela Palmater, associate professor and chair in indigenous governance at Ryerson University. She is a Mi’kmaq lawyer, an Idle No More activist and author of Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging.

Welcome back to Democracy Now! Can you start, Pamela, by talking—by responding to the commission’s report? Were you surprised by what they found?

PAMELAPALMATER: No, I wasn’t surprised. I mean, this is something that indigenous peoples have known since the inception of residential schools. The federal government wasn’t surprised, the RCMP or churches. Everybody in a position of power has long known about the crimes and abuses that happened at residential schools. We’re quite thankful for the bravery of the survivors to come forward and make sure that it was documented. This is a critical piece. And the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did an incredible job in the face of many barriers put forward by the federal government to make sure that their stories were heard and that as much documented evidence was contained in the report. And I think that’s incredibly important for Canadians, because we know what happened to us, but Canadians don’t know what happened, and they don’t understand the culpability of the federal government and churches in this regard.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the issue of the conclusion of cultural genocide, do you have any concerns or qualms about that specifically?

PAMELAPALMATER: Yeah. Well, I mean, I think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission went about as far as they felt comfortable in naming it cultural genocide. But I—it’s just genocide through and through. If you look at the U.N. definition on genocide, it meets every single one of those factors. And there’s nothing cultural about it. They weren’t killing us because of our culture. They were killing us because we were Indians, and we stood in the way of accessing all of the lands and resources and settlement in this country.

Think about it. All of the overrepresentation in this country in prisons—you know, some prisons have as high as 60 percent indigenous peoples—that’s not because of our culture; it’s because we’re Indians, and we have rights and aboriginal rights that still stand in the way of unfettered resource development. Why are our kids overrepresented in Child and Family Services, to the tune of 30,000 to 40,000 in Canada? Here in Manitoba, 90 percent of all kids in care are indigenous. It’s not because of their culture; it’s because of who they are as Indians and that we’re the indigenous peoples here, and we have rights to protect this territory, and we’re essentially the last stand against complete, unfettered development here in this country.

And so, if you look at it across the board, while they may have characterized it in terms of, you know, assimilating culture, you wouldn’t have a death rate of upwards of 40 percent in some of those schools if it was just about culture. It would have been more aggressive education tactics, both in those schools and in the communities. If you have a death rate that’s higher than those who enlisted in World War II, this wasn’t about culture.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to turn to survivor testimony recorded by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Canada. This is William Nelson describing his experience being sent to a residential school.

WILLIAMNELSON: We arrived to the dorm in the middle of the night. The supervisor for the junior boys showed me my bed, the rows of beds where other boys were asleep. I thought they were asleep, but once the supervisor closed the door, all the heads popped up. And the boys all stood around to look at the new kid. That was me. Around the second night or so, the supervisor opened the dorm door, which he caught me sitting up in bed. He says, "We have rules here, if you’re caught sitting up in bed. You should be sleeping." Because I was sitting up, I had to be punished. The punishment was getting strapped and whipped with a belt. I believe it was about seven times that I was whipped in the back.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s William Nelson. Another survivor of the residential schools named MaryAnn Sam of Vancouver Island also spoke at the Truth and Reconciliation sharing circle.

MARYANNSAM: From my experience while I was at the residential school, my sisters and I were led to believe that our mother was killed in a car accident. But that was not true. She was in the accident, but the ministry and families had taken us, hid me and my sisters for years. When my mom was well enough to care for us again, she searched and searched for us. We were once again reunited. She returned us home, a single parent. And again, it was her struggle that provided us strength to love and respect others. It was then, when we returned home, that we were brought to the day school again with priests and nuns. So we thought this was the way of life. But we enjoyed where we were, back with our community, family and children that we knew. But the experience here was similar, not again to use our language, not to use our cultural ways, because that was not for who we were. In my community, it was our mothers who fought for our school and went about to teach our language, our culture.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s MaryAnn Sam of Vancouver Island speaking at the Truth and Reconciliation sharing circle. Professor Palmater, she says, "My sisters and I were led to believe our mother was killed in a car accident. But that wasn’t true." And respond to what both William and she were saying.

PAMELAPALMATER: Well, I mean, these stories are quite common, and stories even worse than this are quite common, the amount of intentional lying and deception and keeping parents away from children. So it wasn’t like parents were just enrolling these children, they were going to school, and there were some isolated incidents of bad things happening. We’re talking about wholescale theft of children from communities, in large part against the will of the parents, and parents were kept away from those schools. And even children who ran away were brought back oftentimes by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, despite the allegations of what was happening in those schools.

And that’s the real crime here, because whether or not people agree that this is genocide, it was always against the law to kidnap children, to assault them, to assault them with deadly weapons, to rape, torture them, use electric chairs on them, to deny them food and water, to beat them to such an extent that some died, to starve them until some died. All of these things were crimes then, just as it is now. And nobody was prosecuted, despite the fact that the RCMP knew, the federal government knew, and the churches knew exactly what was happening.

And I think really illustrative of that are the government’s own documents. You had doctors coming to the federal government, saying, "You have extremely high death rates in the schools." And the federal government’s response was: "Well, that doesn’t justify a change in our policy, because the overall objective is, quote-unquote, 'the final solution.'" And we’ve heard those words before. So we know exactly what the intention was. And I know there was a focus on culture and that people were abused and beaten for speaking their language and culture, and they were clearly denied their identity. But for many of these children, upwards of 40 percent, they were denied their right to live. And that goes far beyond culture. Think about at the same time the forced sterilizations that were happening against indigenous women and little girls all across the country. Sterilization has nothing to do with one’s culture, but, in essence, the one’s right to continue on in their cultural group or nation-based group. The objective was to get rid of Indians in whatever way possible. Culture was one aspect of it, but also denying them the right to live or to procreate was an essential part of this.

And I think what’s really important for people around the world to understand is that residential schools didn’t really stand in isolation. It was in addition to the forced sterilizations, the scalping bounties, all of the—overrepresenting our people in prison, stealing them and putting them in Child and Family Services, the thousands of murdered and missing indigenous women in this country that go unresolved, and no steps taken to prevent these actions, and that this is ongoing. It would be a terrible mistake to historicize this and say, "Well, this happened a long time ago. We now know what happened. Let’s apologize and move on." It is ongoing.

When they closed residential schools, their very next policy was known as the Sixties Scoop, where they actually took more children from First Nations than during the residential school period, which is why we have now 30 to 40 percent of our children in care. They’re still taking our children. They’re still trying to raise them in non-indigenous families. And many of these children end up as murdered or missing indigenous women, or they end up in the prison system. And that’s—this legacy of the residential schools is ongoing. It’s very much in the present. You can track the survivors of residential schools to kids in care, to people in prison, to those who are homeless, to those who have poor health. All of these things are very much in the present. So we have to take action now to address the ongoing problems that were started by the residential school and have never stopped and continue to this day in just different terminology and in different policies.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Paula Palmater, I wanted to ask you about the role of the churches in this. It wasn’t just the government. Which churches? What specifically did they do? And what has been their admission of—their own admission of their culpability in this cultural genocide, or this general genocide, as you say?

PAMELAPALMATER: Well, I think it’s varied. So, all of the churches that were here were involved in this. It looks like the majority of these schools were run by the Catholic Church. I understand that there—at a local level, there has been difficulty in obtaining records. Often churches didn’t make note of the children who died in those schools. So we don’t even have a complete record of those—how many that did die. We know for sure it’s at least 6,000 to 7,000, but it could be even higher. Many churches had unmarked graves. And we’re in a situation now where many residential school survivors and First Nations are demanding that churches come forward and give us all of their documentation, at every level, no matter where the documents have been kept, about who knew what and when, who was involved, and primarily to bring closure for many of these families to know where their child last spent their days, where their remains could possibly be. And all of that information has not been forthcoming from the churches, especially at an administrative or national or international level.

At the local level, however, you do see local churches trying to take steps to make amends, to try to have a better relationship with indigenous peoples, and trying to work together to support different initiatives on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. So we have Cree people who are walking across the country for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission events, and their walk was supported by some of the churches, and things like that. But I think at an institutional level, the churches have a lot more work to do, and they need to make some very specific and targeted apologies, and make amends, because, as we know, apology means nothing unless you’re going to try to make amends to right the wrongs that happened in the past. And so, they have a clear responsibility, in addition to the federal government, to support things like indigenous languages and cultures and education, and trying to find a way to both identify these children and return them to their families and communities. That’s incredibly important.

AMYGOODMAN: Last year, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police revealed at least 1,181 native women and girls were killed or went missing between 1980 and 2012. The new Truth and Reconciliation Commission report made a link between the residential schools with the missing and murdered women. The report states, quote, "The available information suggests a devastating link between the large numbers of murdered and missing Aboriginal women and the many harmful background factors in their lives. The complex interplay of factors—many of which are part of the legacy of residential schools—needs to be examined, as does the lack of success of police forces in solving these crimes against Aboriginal women," unquote. Paula Palmater, can you talk about what is being planned now? I mean, that’s a government commission. What is the follow-up at this point?

PAMELAPALMATER: Well, there is no follow-up. And probably one of the most insulting, shameful things that happened yesterday was when the Truth and Reconciliation commissioner, Justice Murray Sinclair, got up and said there’s a clear link between what happened in residential schools and the vulnerability of our indigenous women and girls that go murdered and missing, and that he recommended and supported all of the calls for a national inquiry: Everyone stood up, gave him a standing ovation, except the minister of Indian affairs.

And that’s extremely significant, if the minister of Indian affairs can’t be supportive of finding justice for indigenous women and girls, who go murdered and missing at an extremely alarming rate. Here in Manitoba, it’s 50 percent. They only make up 4 percent of the population, but 50 percent of all indigenous women and—of all women and girls that go murdered or missing are indigenous. And so we have some significant issues across the country. Again, it’s not just about our culture. Our very lives are at stake.

And so, the minister of Indian affairs didn’t clap. He didn’t give a standing ovation. And this is in line with what the prime minister has said. He has said, time and time again, an inquiry into why indigenous women go murdered and missing is not high on our radar. He doesn’t consider it to be an issue. And he’s really out of touch with all of the research. There’s been at least 50 reports with over 700 recommendations on how to deal with this. And the United Nations, various human rights bodies, including CEDAW, have come out with reports which have researched and studied this and said this is a problem.

The police are not taking action. There’s lots of socioeconomic conditions of poverty that make our indigenous women and girls vulnerable, some stemming from residential schools, some stemming from Canada’s very purposeful, targeted, racist and discriminatory laws and policies, and that a national inquiry is recommended to get at the root of it so that we can come up with solutions to prevent it from happening to begin with. It’s no good to have a police force who’s now willing to take action to investigate murders; we want to stop those from happening in the beginning.

And I think it’s critical that this Truth and Reconciliation report tied all of these things together, that residential schools didn’t just happen as a moment in history. It’s ongoing legacy. And that’s also in line with some of the other recommendations around the overrepresentation of our people in prisons. Justice Murray Sinclair recommended that action be taken right away to look at all of the criminalization data and take action to stop this from happening—the same with Child and Family Services, the same with all of the socioeconomic problems that make our people vulnerable to begin with.

AMYGOODMAN: Paula Palmater, we want to thank you very much for being with us, associate professor and chair in indigenous governance at Ryerson University. She is a Mi’kmaq lawyer, an Idle No More activist and author of Beyond Blood: Rethinking Indigenous Identity and Belonging. Thanks so much for joining us from Winnipeg, Manitoba.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, Sepp Blatter to step down. We’ll speak with an Australian soccer official who blew the whistle on FIFA. Stay with us.

]]>
Wed, 03 Jun 2015 00:00:00 -0400Noam Chomsky on Black Lives Matter: Why Won't U.S. Own Up to History of Slavery & Racism?http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/3/noam_chomsky_on_black_lives_matter
tag:democracynow.org,2015-03-03:en/story/0b3e2a
AMY GOODMAN : And then you have in the United States a movement around accountability, overall. It&#8217;s the 50th anniversary of the Selma Bloody Sunday, March 7th, when John Lewis, now a congressman, and scores of others had their heads beaten in by Alabama state troopers. It&#8217;s 50 years later, and you have the Black Lives Matter movement. You have these stories repeatedly around the country of police officers killing young people and not-so-young people of color. What do you make of this movement? And do you see the anti-austerity movement in Europe, the accountability movement in the United States, the movement around climate change—do you see these coalescing in any way?
NOAM CHOMSKY : They should. But in actual fact, the degree of coalescence is not high. We should remember that—take Selma. If you listen to the rhetoric on Martin Luther King Day, it&#8217;s instructive. It typically ends with the &quot;I Have a Dream&quot; speech and the voting rights. And Martin Luther King didn&#8217;t stop there. He went on to condemning the war in Vietnam and to raising class issues. He began to raise class issues and turn to the North. At that point, he fell out of favor and disappeared. He was trying to—he was assassinated when he was trying to organize a poor people&#8217;s movement, and he was supporting a sanitation workers&#8217; strike in Memphis. There was supposed to be a march to Washington to establish a poor people&#8217;s movement, appeal to Congress to do something about class issues. Well, the march actually took place after his death, led by his widow, ended up in Washington. They set up a tent city, a resurrection city. This was the most liberal Congress in history probably, tolerated it briefly, then sent in the police in the middle of the night and drove them out of town. And that&#8217;s disappeared from the rhetoric on Martin Luther King Day. So it&#8217;s OK to condemn a racist sheriff in Alabama, but not us, please. Don&#8217;t touch our privilege and power. And that&#8217;s a large part of the background.
These issues are very real. There&#8217;s more issues here. Racism is a very serious problem in the United States. Take a look at the scholarly work on it, say, George Fredrickson&#8217;s study of the white supremacy, comparative study. He concludes, I think plausibly, that the white supremacy in the United States was even more extreme and savage than in South Africa. Just think of our own history. You know, our economy, our wealth, our privilege relies very heavily on a century of horrifying slave labor camps. The cotton—cotton production was not just the fuel of the Industrial Revolution, it was the basis for the financial system, the merchant system, commerce, England, as well. These were bitter, brutal slave labor camps. There&#8217;s a recent study by Edward Baptist which comes out with some startling information. It&#8217;s called—actually, the title is startling, something like The Half was Never Told [ The Half Has Never Been Told ], which is more or less true, was never told. But, for example, he shows, pretty convincingly, that in the slave labor camps—the &quot;plantations,&quot; we call them, politely—the productivity increased more rapidly than in industry, with no technological advance, just the bullwhip. Just by driving people harder and harder to the point of survival, they were able to increase productivity and profit. And it&#8217;s not just the—he also points out that the word &quot;torture&quot; is not used in discussion of this period. He introduces it should be used. I mean, these are camps that could have impressed the Nazis. And it is a large part of the basis for our wealth and privilege. Is there a slave museum in the United States? Actually, the first one is just being established now by private—some private donor. I mean, this is the core of our history, along with the extermination or expulsion of the native population, but it&#8217;s not part of our consciousness.

AMYGOODMAN: And then you have in the United States a movement around accountability, overall. It’s the 50th anniversary of the Selma Bloody Sunday, March 7th, when John Lewis, now a congressman, and scores of others had their heads beaten in by Alabama state troopers. It’s 50 years later, and you have the Black Lives Matter movement. You have these stories repeatedly around the country of police officers killing young people and not-so-young people of color. What do you make of this movement? And do you see the anti-austerity movement in Europe, the accountability movement in the United States, the movement around climate change—do you see these coalescing in any way?

NOAMCHOMSKY: They should. But in actual fact, the degree of coalescence is not high. We should remember that—take Selma. If you listen to the rhetoric on Martin Luther King Day, it’s instructive. It typically ends with the "I Have a Dream" speech and the voting rights. And Martin Luther King didn’t stop there. He went on to condemning the war in Vietnam and to raising class issues. He began to raise class issues and turn to the North. At that point, he fell out of favor and disappeared. He was trying to—he was assassinated when he was trying to organize a poor people’s movement, and he was supporting a sanitation workers’ strike in Memphis. There was supposed to be a march to Washington to establish a poor people’s movement, appeal to Congress to do something about class issues. Well, the march actually took place after his death, led by his widow, ended up in Washington. They set up a tent city, a resurrection city. This was the most liberal Congress in history probably, tolerated it briefly, then sent in the police in the middle of the night and drove them out of town. And that’s disappeared from the rhetoric on Martin Luther King Day. So it’s OK to condemn a racist sheriff in Alabama, but not us, please. Don’t touch our privilege and power. And that’s a large part of the background.

These issues are very real. There’s more issues here. Racism is a very serious problem in the United States. Take a look at the scholarly work on it, say, George Fredrickson’s study of the white supremacy, comparative study. He concludes, I think plausibly, that the white supremacy in the United States was even more extreme and savage than in South Africa. Just think of our own history. You know, our economy, our wealth, our privilege relies very heavily on a century of horrifying slave labor camps. The cotton—cotton production was not just the fuel of the Industrial Revolution, it was the basis for the financial system, the merchant system, commerce, England, as well. These were bitter, brutal slave labor camps. There’s a recent study by Edward Baptist which comes out with some startling information. It’s called—actually, the title is startling, something like The Half was Never Told [The Half Has Never Been Told], which is more or less true, was never told. But, for example, he shows, pretty convincingly, that in the slave labor camps—the "plantations," we call them, politely—the productivity increased more rapidly than in industry, with no technological advance, just the bullwhip. Just by driving people harder and harder to the point of survival, they were able to increase productivity and profit. And it’s not just the—he also points out that the word "torture" is not used in discussion of this period. He introduces it should be used. I mean, these are camps that could have impressed the Nazis. And it is a large part of the basis for our wealth and privilege. Is there a slave museum in the United States? Actually, the first one is just being established now by private—some private donor. I mean, this is the core of our history, along with the extermination or expulsion of the native population, but it’s not part of our consciousness.

]]>
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 -0500Prosecuting Guatemala's Dirty War: Rigoberta Menchú Hails Embassy Fire Verdict, Dictator's Trialhttp://www.democracynow.org/2015/1/20/prosecuting_guatemalas_dirty_war_rigoberta_menchu
tag:democracynow.org,2015-01-20:en/story/98ad1a AARON MATÉ: In a major victory for human rights activists, a Guatemalan court has returned a guilty verdict in the Spanish Embassy massacre of 1980. On Monday, the court found former police chief Pedro García Arredondo responsible for ordering an attack on 37 peasant activists and student organizers who were occupying the Spanish Embassy in Guatemala City to protest the government. Judge María Eugenia Castellanos delivered the verdict.
JUDGE MARÍA EUGENIA CASTELLANOS : [translated] This court unanimously declares, first, that the defendant, Pedro García Arredondo, is the perpetrator responsible for the crimes of murder.
AMY GOODMAN : According to Monday&#8217;s ruling, Arredondo was the officer who gave the order to set fire to the diplomatic mission, burning the activists to death. He was also found guilty of two separate murders and sentenced to a total of 90 years in prison.
One of the victims of the Spanish Embassy massacre was Don Vicente Menchú, an indigenous peasant leader and father of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. In a moment, Rigoberta Menchú will join us live from Guatemala City to discuss this historic verdict—over three decades in the making. But first, let&#8217;s go back to a clip of the 1983 documentary When the Mountains Tremble . In the film, Menchú looks directly into the camera and explains why her father and other peasant activists occupied the Spanish Embassy January 31st, 1980.
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] The security forces arrived in our village to throw us off our plot. According to them, it belonged to a nearby landowner. We were very scared, since we didn&#8217;t speak Spanish and couldn&#8217;t understand them. They destroyed what little we had. So the people started defending themselves. But no one would listen to us, neither the government nor the mass media. That&#8217;s why my father got together with many others in the capital, and they decided to take over the Spanish Embassy to let the world know what was happening to us. The rest is history.
AARON MATÉ: That was Rigoberta Menchu in the 1983 documentary, When the Mountains Tremble . Just two people survived the embassy fire. One of them was Spanish Ambassador Máximo Cajal y López. The other was a Guatemalan farmer named Gregorio Yujá. He was subsequently disappeared and his body found with evidence of torture three days after the fire. During the Guatemalan dirty war, more than 200,000 people died—83 percent of them were indigenous Mayans.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, for more, we&#8217;re joined now by Democracy Now! video stream from Guatemala City by Rigoberta Menchú. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. She has published many books, including I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala . She&#8217;s been translated into over a dozen languages, awarded more than 30 honorary degrees, runs the Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation.
Here in New York, we&#8217;re joined by Pamela Yates, a partner at Skylight Pictures, a documentary film and digital media company that focuses on human rights and social justice stories. In 1983, she collaborated with Rigoberta Menchú in that documentary, When the Mountains Tremble .
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let&#8217;s go directly first to Guatemala City. Rigoberta Menchú, you were in the courtroom when the verdict and sentence were handed down. Can you describe your reaction?
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Well, undoubtedly, this is a historic event. This trial and verdict are huge. We waited 16 years for this verdict to be handed down. The trial went on for 16 years. And this verdict has been issued 36 years after the event itself. So we are deeply moved, and this is a very special moment in our history.
AARON MATÉ: Can you talk about your long quest for justice, almost four decades in the making?
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Well, first of all, I left Guatemala and fled. I was forced into exile. And I promised myself and I promised my father and I promised the memory of Guatemala and the victims of Guatemala that I would not cease fighting against impunity. And that&#8217;s precisely what I have done. Year in and year out, every day of my life, I have dedicated myself to gathering the evidence and putting together the cases to fight for this truth.
I think that it&#8217;s very important, and what&#8217;s really crucial here is the memory of the victims and the search for the truth, and also the commitment to substantiate the truth. So the truth is foremost, because they accused us of being liars. They tried to denigrate the memory of the victims. They even said that the victims had burned themselves. But the truth has come forward with this verdict from the court that holds not just García Arredondo responsible, but holds the state of Guatemala responsible for this massacre.
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s go to that issue of the state, because in the same courthouse, General Ríos Montt is on trial, though that trial has been delayed. Can you talk about the significance of what he has done?
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Yes. There are two guilty verdicts that have been issued in this courthouse: first, the guilty verdict for the Spanish Embassy massacre, and secondly, the guilty conviction of Ríos Montt. In both cases, we are seeing that there are significant legal challenges. The constitutional court has declared the case against Ríos Montt as not—has been annulled. But these are illegal arguments. They are breaking with due process. And so, both cases face significant legal challenges and hurdles to stick.
AMY GOODMAN : Pam Yates, if you could tell us further about what&#8217;s happening with Ríos Montt right now, the man who was president from &#39;82 to &#8217;83, what he was convicted of, why he&#39;s back in trial, and, as we wrap up, how this implicates—or does it?—the current president of Guatemala, Pérez Molina, and the role of the United States?
PAMELA YATES : That&#8217;s a lot, Amy. And buenos días , Rigoberta. The case against Ríos Montt, he is being retried on the same charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. But his lawyers&#8217; strategy is to delay and deny—delay so that he will never go to prison. He&#8217;s 88 years old; they hope he will die before that. But isn&#8217;t it incredible that the people of Guatemala now have successfully adjudicated these two cases? One for genocide, the first ever of a perpetrator of genocide against indigenous people in the Americas—never happened before.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Ríos Montt.
PAMELA YATES : That was Ríos Montt. And now the—
AMY GOODMAN : The verdict set aside?
PAMELA YATES : The verdict was set aside, but for so many people in Guatemala, the verdict is valid. And, you know, the quest for justice is justice. So the fact that people came into the courtroom and spoke for two months about what had actually happened in Guatemala, in both the Ríos Montt genocide case and the Pedro García Arredondo case, the burning of the Spanish Embassy, really contributes to the historical narrative and setting the record straight about what happened in Guatemala, so everyone knows what actually happened and no one is afraid to talk about it.
AARON MATÉ: And the U.S. role?
PAMELA YATES : The U.S. role—well, the U.S. was totally complicit in the genocide in Guatemala. And we now have the documentation to prove it. When Ríos Montt was being tried for genocide, the Ministerio Público, the Public Ministry, like the Attorney General&#8217;s Office, had a very narrow focus on one particular region and one particular group of ethnic Maya, the Maya Ixil. But many other things were happening, and many other areas really need to be explored—the role of Otto Pérez Molina, the current president of Guatemala; the role of the United States. And I&#8217;m hoping now that the conviction in the Spanish Embassy case will increase the momentum for this justice initiative to continue. More people have been tried, arrested, convicted of crimes that happened during the war in Guatemala in the last four years than in the previous 30 years. And I think the international community has to support that initiative.
AMY GOODMAN : Rigoberta Menchú, as we wrap up, do you hold the United States responsible, in addition to your own government at the time, the Guatemalan government and military? We only have 15 seconds.
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Yes, I totally concur. There is a great deal of documentation that has been compiled, part of it related to the Cold War. And, in fact, the weapon that was used to incinerate the Spanish Embassy and to burn those that occupied it is also of a dubious source that is being looked into and documented. So, in conclusion, I do hold not only the state of Guatemala responsible, but—
AMY GOODMAN : We have to leave it there. I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Aaron Maté. AARON MATÉ: In a major victory for human rights activists, a Guatemalan court has returned a guilty verdict in the Spanish Embassy massacre of 1980. On Monday, the court found former police chief Pedro García Arredondo responsible for ordering an attack on 37 peasant activists and student organizers who were occupying the Spanish Embassy in Guatemala City to protest the government. Judge María Eugenia Castellanos delivered the verdict.

JUDGE MARÍA EUGENIACASTELLANOS: [translated] This court unanimously declares, first, that the defendant, Pedro García Arredondo, is the perpetrator responsible for the crimes of murder.

AMYGOODMAN: According to Monday’s ruling, Arredondo was the officer who gave the order to set fire to the diplomatic mission, burning the activists to death. He was also found guilty of two separate murders and sentenced to a total of 90 years in prison.

One of the victims of the Spanish Embassy massacre was Don Vicente Menchú, an indigenous peasant leader and father of the Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. In a moment, Rigoberta Menchú will join us live from Guatemala City to discuss this historic verdict—over three decades in the making. But first, let’s go back to a clip of the 1983 documentary When the Mountains Tremble. In the film, Menchú looks directly into the camera and explains why her father and other peasant activists occupied the Spanish Embassy January 31st, 1980.

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] The security forces arrived in our village to throw us off our plot. According to them, it belonged to a nearby landowner. We were very scared, since we didn’t speak Spanish and couldn’t understand them. They destroyed what little we had. So the people started defending themselves. But no one would listen to us, neither the government nor the mass media. That’s why my father got together with many others in the capital, and they decided to take over the Spanish Embassy to let the world know what was happening to us. The rest is history.

AARON MATÉ: That was Rigoberta Menchu in the 1983 documentary, When the Mountains Tremble. Just two people survived the embassy fire. One of them was Spanish Ambassador Máximo Cajal y López. The other was a Guatemalan farmer named Gregorio Yujá. He was subsequently disappeared and his body found with evidence of torture three days after the fire. During the Guatemalan dirty war, more than 200,000 people died—83 percent of them were indigenous Mayans.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, for more, we’re joined now by Democracy Now! video stream from Guatemala City by Rigoberta Menchú. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1992. She has published many books, including I, Rigoberta Menchú: An Indian Woman in Guatemala. She’s been translated into over a dozen languages, awarded more than 30 honorary degrees, runs the Rigoberta Menchú Tum Foundation.

Here in New York, we’re joined by Pamela Yates, a partner at Skylight Pictures, a documentary film and digital media company that focuses on human rights and social justice stories. In 1983, she collaborated with Rigoberta Menchú in that documentary, When the Mountains Tremble.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s go directly first to Guatemala City. Rigoberta Menchú, you were in the courtroom when the verdict and sentence were handed down. Can you describe your reaction?

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Well, undoubtedly, this is a historic event. This trial and verdict are huge. We waited 16 years for this verdict to be handed down. The trial went on for 16 years. And this verdict has been issued 36 years after the event itself. So we are deeply moved, and this is a very special moment in our history.

AARON MATÉ: Can you talk about your long quest for justice, almost four decades in the making?

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Well, first of all, I left Guatemala and fled. I was forced into exile. And I promised myself and I promised my father and I promised the memory of Guatemala and the victims of Guatemala that I would not cease fighting against impunity. And that’s precisely what I have done. Year in and year out, every day of my life, I have dedicated myself to gathering the evidence and putting together the cases to fight for this truth.

I think that it’s very important, and what’s really crucial here is the memory of the victims and the search for the truth, and also the commitment to substantiate the truth. So the truth is foremost, because they accused us of being liars. They tried to denigrate the memory of the victims. They even said that the victims had burned themselves. But the truth has come forward with this verdict from the court that holds not just García Arredondo responsible, but holds the state of Guatemala responsible for this massacre.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s go to that issue of the state, because in the same courthouse, General Ríos Montt is on trial, though that trial has been delayed. Can you talk about the significance of what he has done?

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Yes. There are two guilty verdicts that have been issued in this courthouse: first, the guilty verdict for the Spanish Embassy massacre, and secondly, the guilty conviction of Ríos Montt. In both cases, we are seeing that there are significant legal challenges. The constitutional court has declared the case against Ríos Montt as not—has been annulled. But these are illegal arguments. They are breaking with due process. And so, both cases face significant legal challenges and hurdles to stick.

AMYGOODMAN: Pam Yates, if you could tell us further about what’s happening with Ríos Montt right now, the man who was president from '82 to ’83, what he was convicted of, why he's back in trial, and, as we wrap up, how this implicates—or does it?—the current president of Guatemala, Pérez Molina, and the role of the United States?

PAMELAYATES: That’s a lot, Amy. And buenos días, Rigoberta. The case against Ríos Montt, he is being retried on the same charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. But his lawyers’ strategy is to delay and deny—delay so that he will never go to prison. He’s 88 years old; they hope he will die before that. But isn’t it incredible that the people of Guatemala now have successfully adjudicated these two cases? One for genocide, the first ever of a perpetrator of genocide against indigenous people in the Americas—never happened before.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Ríos Montt.

PAMELAYATES: That was Ríos Montt. And now the—

AMYGOODMAN: The verdict set aside?

PAMELAYATES: The verdict was set aside, but for so many people in Guatemala, the verdict is valid. And, you know, the quest for justice is justice. So the fact that people came into the courtroom and spoke for two months about what had actually happened in Guatemala, in both the Ríos Montt genocide case and the Pedro García Arredondo case, the burning of the Spanish Embassy, really contributes to the historical narrative and setting the record straight about what happened in Guatemala, so everyone knows what actually happened and no one is afraid to talk about it.

AARON MATÉ: And the U.S. role?

PAMELAYATES: The U.S. role—well, the U.S. was totally complicit in the genocide in Guatemala. And we now have the documentation to prove it. When Ríos Montt was being tried for genocide, the Ministerio Público, the Public Ministry, like the Attorney General’s Office, had a very narrow focus on one particular region and one particular group of ethnic Maya, the Maya Ixil. But many other things were happening, and many other areas really need to be explored—the role of Otto Pérez Molina, the current president of Guatemala; the role of the United States. And I’m hoping now that the conviction in the Spanish Embassy case will increase the momentum for this justice initiative to continue. More people have been tried, arrested, convicted of crimes that happened during the war in Guatemala in the last four years than in the previous 30 years. And I think the international community has to support that initiative.

AMYGOODMAN: Rigoberta Menchú, as we wrap up, do you hold the United States responsible, in addition to your own government at the time, the Guatemalan government and military? We only have 15 seconds.

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] Yes, I totally concur. There is a great deal of documentation that has been compiled, part of it related to the Cold War. And, in fact, the weapon that was used to incinerate the Spanish Embassy and to burn those that occupied it is also of a dubious source that is being looked into and documented. So, in conclusion, I do hold not only the state of Guatemala responsible, but—

AMYGOODMAN: We have to leave it there. I’m Amy Goodman, with Aaron Maté.

]]>
Tue, 20 Jan 2015 00:00:00 -0500"We Are Like the Walking Dead": Latin American Indigenous Groups Decry Corporate Destruction of Landhttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/11/we_are_like_the_walking_dead
tag:democracynow.org,2014-12-11:en/story/d55b5f AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re broadcasting from COP 20, the United Nations climate conference in Lima, Peru, where Secretary of State John Kerry is due to arrive today as the talks enter their final two days. The last time a U.S. secretary of state attended the summit was Hillary Clinton in 2009 in Copenhagen. Leaders from about 190 nations are trying to work out a draft deal to limit rising global greenhouse gas emissions ahead of next year&#8217;s summit in Paris, where an agreement is expected to be finalized. On Wednesday, the presidents of Peru, Chile, Mexico and Colombia urged negotiators to take significant steps towards combating global warming. This is Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.
PRESIDENT MICHELLE BACHELET : [translated] We know that if we don&#8217;t reach an agreement at the next conference in Paris, it&#8217;s possible that we will be too late. The success of COP 21 next year will depend to a great degree on the agreements reached here, and that means that we have no right to fail. Future generations will hold us accountable, and with good reason, if we allow this opportunity to go by.
AMY GOODMAN : On Wednesday, thousands of people marched here in downtown Lima, Peru, to call for action on climate change, among them members of Peru&#8217;s more than 50 indigenous communities. Across Latin America, indigenous and rural communities are among the most impacted by mining, oil drilling and other extractive industries that fuel global warming. They&#8217;re also among those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Democracy Now! &#8217;s Amy Littlefield spoke to members of those frontline communities. Some had traveled to Lima, Peru, from as far away as Mexico.
VENANCIA CRUZ DOMÍNGUEZ: [translated] My name is Venancia Cruz Domínguez. I come from the indigenous movement of Santiago de Anaya in Hidalgo, Mexico. There are six municipalities whose environment is being contaminated by the company Cementos Fortaleza, whose owner is Carlos Slim, a huge magnate considered the richest and most powerful man in the world. Yet he came to rob our clean air, our tranquility, and to take away our water. The impact is being felt in the environment. Every morning we rise to see plants and outdoor furniture covered with a thin film. The crops of my neighbors are being impaired by this thin film that is produced by Cementos Fortaleza in Santiago de Anaya.
YSABEL VALDIVIA MARTÍNEZ: [translated] My name is Ysabel Valdivia Martínez, and I am a defender of the Amazon and a Peruvian. And sadly, I see that a North American, Dennis Nicholas Melka, with 20 companies, is deforesting all the Amazon, including virgin forests and secondary forests, to replace it with palm oil. Daily, they knock down a thousand hectares of virgin forest, affecting the biodiversity, the flora, the fauna, the water—all of that to exploit palm and to industrialize it for biodiesel.
ATOQ KURTURKANKI : [translated] My name is Atoq Kurturkanki. How does climate change impact us? First of all, there is no rain anymore. The rivers have dried up, because the miners use water, and that water is poisoned, and the animals die. For us, the Andean or indigenous community, they have eliminated our economy, including agriculture, textiles and cattle raising. All of these things they have taken from us. Effectively, they have cut off our arms, and we are practically like walking dead.
PHAXSI RODRÍGUEZ APIZACA : [translated] My name is Phaxsi. In Aymara, it means &quot;moon.&quot; And I&#8217;m here to raise awareness, to say to all of humanity that we have to return to the heart of Mother Earth. We have to wake up. We have to unite. It&#8217;s time to say, &quot;Enough.&quot; We have to return, because the Aymara, we live together with the environment. We Aymara live together with the Earth. And we&#8217;re being impacted because right now the Aymara people are suffering from drought. And that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m asking the great representatives of the world to wake up, that the change begins now, that the change begins in every corner of the Earth. This is the message that we bring, the cosmic message to every corner of the Earth from the wisdom of our ancestors.
AMY GOODMAN : That report produced by Amy Littlefield and John Hamilton. Special thanks to our Spanish team at Democracy Now! , Clara Ibarra and Andrés Conteris. You can see our Spanish coverage of the COP at democracynow.org by clicking on the tab &quot;Español.&quot; AMYGOODMAN: We’re broadcasting from COP 20, the United Nations climate conference in Lima, Peru, where Secretary of State John Kerry is due to arrive today as the talks enter their final two days. The last time a U.S. secretary of state attended the summit was Hillary Clinton in 2009 in Copenhagen. Leaders from about 190 nations are trying to work out a draft deal to limit rising global greenhouse gas emissions ahead of next year’s summit in Paris, where an agreement is expected to be finalized. On Wednesday, the presidents of Peru, Chile, Mexico and Colombia urged negotiators to take significant steps towards combating global warming. This is Chilean President Michelle Bachelet.

PRESIDENTMICHELLEBACHELET: [translated] We know that if we don’t reach an agreement at the next conference in Paris, it’s possible that we will be too late. The success of COP 21 next year will depend to a great degree on the agreements reached here, and that means that we have no right to fail. Future generations will hold us accountable, and with good reason, if we allow this opportunity to go by.

AMYGOODMAN: On Wednesday, thousands of people marched here in downtown Lima, Peru, to call for action on climate change, among them members of Peru’s more than 50 indigenous communities. Across Latin America, indigenous and rural communities are among the most impacted by mining, oil drilling and other extractive industries that fuel global warming. They’re also among those most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Democracy Now!’s Amy Littlefield spoke to members of those frontline communities. Some had traveled to Lima, Peru, from as far away as Mexico.

VENANCIACRUZ DOMÍNGUEZ: [translated] My name is Venancia Cruz Domínguez. I come from the indigenous movement of Santiago de Anaya in Hidalgo, Mexico. There are six municipalities whose environment is being contaminated by the company Cementos Fortaleza, whose owner is Carlos Slim, a huge magnate considered the richest and most powerful man in the world. Yet he came to rob our clean air, our tranquility, and to take away our water. The impact is being felt in the environment. Every morning we rise to see plants and outdoor furniture covered with a thin film. The crops of my neighbors are being impaired by this thin film that is produced by Cementos Fortaleza in Santiago de Anaya.

YSABELVALDIVIA MARTÍNEZ: [translated] My name is Ysabel Valdivia Martínez, and I am a defender of the Amazon and a Peruvian. And sadly, I see that a North American, Dennis Nicholas Melka, with 20 companies, is deforesting all the Amazon, including virgin forests and secondary forests, to replace it with palm oil. Daily, they knock down a thousand hectares of virgin forest, affecting the biodiversity, the flora, the fauna, the water—all of that to exploit palm and to industrialize it for biodiesel.

ATOQKURTURKANKI: [translated] My name is Atoq Kurturkanki. How does climate change impact us? First of all, there is no rain anymore. The rivers have dried up, because the miners use water, and that water is poisoned, and the animals die. For us, the Andean or indigenous community, they have eliminated our economy, including agriculture, textiles and cattle raising. All of these things they have taken from us. Effectively, they have cut off our arms, and we are practically like walking dead.

PHAXSI RODRÍGUEZ APIZACA: [translated] My name is Phaxsi. In Aymara, it means "moon." And I’m here to raise awareness, to say to all of humanity that we have to return to the heart of Mother Earth. We have to wake up. We have to unite. It’s time to say, "Enough." We have to return, because the Aymara, we live together with the environment. We Aymara live together with the Earth. And we’re being impacted because right now the Aymara people are suffering from drought. And that’s why I’m asking the great representatives of the world to wake up, that the change begins now, that the change begins in every corner of the Earth. This is the message that we bring, the cosmic message to every corner of the Earth from the wisdom of our ancestors.

AMYGOODMAN: That report produced by Amy Littlefield and John Hamilton. Special thanks to our Spanish team at Democracy Now!, Clara Ibarra and Andrés Conteris. You can see our Spanish coverage of the COP at democracynow.org by clicking on the tab "Español."

]]>
Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500Indigenous Women: Earth Defenders Speak Out from the Front Lines of Climate Changehttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/9/indigenous_women_on_the_front_lines
tag:democracynow.org,2014-12-09:en/story/d206ae AMY GOODMAN : Yes, today is Gender Day here at the U.N. climate summit, a day that acknowledges the disproportionate impact of climate change on women, who make up 70 percent of the world&#8217;s poor. Monday&#8217;s event was hosted by WECAN , Women&#8217;s Earth and Climate Action Network. The speakers were introduced by WECAN executive director Osprey Orielle Lake, as well as Amazon Watch USA program director Leila Salazar-Lopez.
LEILA SALAZAR - LOPEZ : Alicia Cahuiya Iteca, she&#8217;s the vice president of the Huaorani nationality from Ecuador.
ALICIA CAHUIYA ITECA : [translated] The Huaorani people lived in a better way in the past. Our water, our environment was clean. Now, with the oil companies that are working in our areas, they have ruined everything. They have polluted the rivers. The children&#8217;s skins are affected. They have different skin diseases. We cannot fish like we used to in the past in the rivers. We ate healthy fish, and now the fish is polluted. We just have a little bit of territory left for the future generations to not suffer the way we have. We have to continue fighting for those territories. That is the only thing we have left. If we didn&#8217;t fight—if we don&#8217;t fight for our territory like our ancestors did, then we wouldn&#8217;t be here speaking at this meeting.
LEILA SALAZAR - LOPEZ : Tantoo Cardinal, Native Canadian, from the tar sands region of Canada.
TANTOO CARDINAL : The government knew what was under the land in 1860. They knew that oil was there in 1860. So they took their time, and it was a long, long process. A part of that process—and this is not just for the tar sands, but for all resources, for taking us off the land—is that the children were taken away. And it was the law. If you didn&#8217;t give your children up, then you could go to jail, and your kids would be taken anyways. Some people hid their children. So, our ways, our traditions were kept underground, in secret. So, for generations, our language was outlawed. Our songs were outlawed. Our way of relationship with creator, with creative force, was outlawed. Our names were taken away.
SÔNIA GUAJAJARA : [translated] So, this is a traditional song from my people, and it&#8217;s basically saying, &quot;I&#8217;m happy, we&#8217;re happy to be together.&quot; And my name is Sônia Guajajara, and my people are from the state of Maranhão, which is in the Amazon in Brazil. And I&#8217;m here to bring the voice of indigenous women, in particular of Brazil, those who couldn&#8217;t be here with us, and all of them who would say the same thing, so that we could unite our voices, because the reality is that in many of the organizations, there is not a space for women and indigenous women to participate. And so, many times they feel suffocated for the words that they cannot say.
OSPREY ORIELLE LAKE : Casey Camp-Horinek, she&#8217;s from the Ponca Nation in Turtle Island, or the United States of America.
CASEY CAMP - HORINEK : We&#8217;re living in a very destructive area, where I am. We have ConocoPhillips. We have fracking. We have earthquakes as a result of that fracking. We have fish kills. We have cancer rates that are astronomical at this time. We have literal killings. They may not be coming after us with their bayonets and their rifles, but they&#8217;re coming at us with nuclear waste, they&#8217;re coming at us with fracking, they&#8217;re coming at us with pipelines that are carrying that filth from the tar sands, where they&#8217;re killing my relatives up there. And they&#8217;re bringing it to you.
OSPREY ORIELLE LAKE : Nina Gualinga, and she is a Kichwa youth leader from the Sarayaku people.
NINA GUALINGA : I grew up in a beautiful place in the rainforest of Ecuador, in Sarayaku. I don&#8217;t have words to describe my childhood, but it was beautiful. I cannot ask for anything else. When I was about seven years old, maybe eight, this representative of an oil company called CGC came to Sarayaku. It was Argentinian oil company. And I did not speak Spanish, but I saw that my elders, my mother and all the people in Sarayaku were worried, and there was tension. I did not know what was going on. And I asked my mother, &quot;What is going on?&quot; because everyone had gathered in this place we call Plaza to talk about what was happening. And all the children were playing outside, but I sat down beside my mother, and I asked her to translate for me. That was the first time I feared for—that my land and the life that I knew was going to be destroyed.
OSPREY ORIELLE LAKE : Patricia Gualinga, she is an indigenous Kichwa leader from the Sarayaku people in Ecuador.
PATRICIA GUALINGA : [translated] The destruction of nature is the destruction of our own energy and of our own existence here on Earth. And the destruction of our spaces is the destruction of indigenous populations. And even though you might not believe this, this is your destruction, as well.
AMY GOODMAN : Patricia Gualinga is Kichwa leader from Sarayaku, Ecuador. You&#8217;ve just heard some of the voices at this remarkable event called &quot;Women Leading Solutions on the Frontlines of Climate Change,&quot; hosted by WECAN , Women&#8217;s Earth and Climate Action Network. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . It is Gender Day here at the United Nations climate summit. But when we come back, we&#8217;ll be joined by the former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, the former Bolivian chief U.N. climate negotiator, Pablo Solón. Stay with us. AMYGOODMAN: Yes, today is Gender Day here at the U.N. climate summit, a day that acknowledges the disproportionate impact of climate change on women, who make up 70 percent of the world’s poor. Monday’s event was hosted by WECAN, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network. The speakers were introduced by WECAN executive director Osprey Orielle Lake, as well as Amazon Watch USA program director Leila Salazar-Lopez.

LEILASALAZAR-LOPEZ: Alicia Cahuiya Iteca, she’s the vice president of the Huaorani nationality from Ecuador.

ALICIACAHUIYAITECA: [translated] The Huaorani people lived in a better way in the past. Our water, our environment was clean. Now, with the oil companies that are working in our areas, they have ruined everything. They have polluted the rivers. The children’s skins are affected. They have different skin diseases. We cannot fish like we used to in the past in the rivers. We ate healthy fish, and now the fish is polluted. We just have a little bit of territory left for the future generations to not suffer the way we have. We have to continue fighting for those territories. That is the only thing we have left. If we didn’t fight—if we don’t fight for our territory like our ancestors did, then we wouldn’t be here speaking at this meeting.

TANTOOCARDINAL: The government knew what was under the land in 1860. They knew that oil was there in 1860. So they took their time, and it was a long, long process. A part of that process—and this is not just for the tar sands, but for all resources, for taking us off the land—is that the children were taken away. And it was the law. If you didn’t give your children up, then you could go to jail, and your kids would be taken anyways. Some people hid their children. So, our ways, our traditions were kept underground, in secret. So, for generations, our language was outlawed. Our songs were outlawed. Our way of relationship with creator, with creative force, was outlawed. Our names were taken away.

SÔNIA GUAJAJARA: [translated] So, this is a traditional song from my people, and it’s basically saying, "I’m happy, we’re happy to be together." And my name is Sônia Guajajara, and my people are from the state of Maranhão, which is in the Amazon in Brazil. And I’m here to bring the voice of indigenous women, in particular of Brazil, those who couldn’t be here with us, and all of them who would say the same thing, so that we could unite our voices, because the reality is that in many of the organizations, there is not a space for women and indigenous women to participate. And so, many times they feel suffocated for the words that they cannot say.

OSPREYORIELLELAKE: Casey Camp-Horinek, she’s from the Ponca Nation in Turtle Island, or the United States of America.

CASEYCAMP-HORINEK: We’re living in a very destructive area, where I am. We have ConocoPhillips. We have fracking. We have earthquakes as a result of that fracking. We have fish kills. We have cancer rates that are astronomical at this time. We have literal killings. They may not be coming after us with their bayonets and their rifles, but they’re coming at us with nuclear waste, they’re coming at us with fracking, they’re coming at us with pipelines that are carrying that filth from the tar sands, where they’re killing my relatives up there. And they’re bringing it to you.

OSPREYORIELLELAKE: Nina Gualinga, and she is a Kichwa youth leader from the Sarayaku people.

NINAGUALINGA: I grew up in a beautiful place in the rainforest of Ecuador, in Sarayaku. I don’t have words to describe my childhood, but it was beautiful. I cannot ask for anything else. When I was about seven years old, maybe eight, this representative of an oil company called CGC came to Sarayaku. It was Argentinian oil company. And I did not speak Spanish, but I saw that my elders, my mother and all the people in Sarayaku were worried, and there was tension. I did not know what was going on. And I asked my mother, "What is going on?" because everyone had gathered in this place we call Plaza to talk about what was happening. And all the children were playing outside, but I sat down beside my mother, and I asked her to translate for me. That was the first time I feared for—that my land and the life that I knew was going to be destroyed.

OSPREYORIELLELAKE: Patricia Gualinga, she is an indigenous Kichwa leader from the Sarayaku people in Ecuador.

PATRICIAGUALINGA: [translated] The destruction of nature is the destruction of our own energy and of our own existence here on Earth. And the destruction of our spaces is the destruction of indigenous populations. And even though you might not believe this, this is your destruction, as well.

AMYGOODMAN: Patricia Gualinga is Kichwa leader from Sarayaku, Ecuador. You’ve just heard some of the voices at this remarkable event called "Women Leading Solutions on the Frontlines of Climate Change," hosted by WECAN, Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. It is Gender Day here at the United Nations climate summit. But when we come back, we’ll be joined by the former Bolivian ambassador to the United Nations, the former Bolivian chief U.N. climate negotiator, Pablo Solón. Stay with us.

]]>
Tue, 09 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500Widows of Peru's Murdered Indigenous Rainforest Defenders Demand Justice at U.N. Climate Summithttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/12/8/widows_of_peru_s_murdered_indigenous
tag:democracynow.org,2014-12-08:en/story/a559c5 AMY GOODMAN : We turn right now to the story of Edwin Chota, in his own words. He was a leading environmental activist and had been profiled in National Geographic . Shortly before his death, he called for greater protection from the government for communities such as his own and described how his life had been threatened.
EDWIN CHOTA : [translated] It is a risk of life or death for us, because if I stand in front of them, in front of the loggers, to represent my community and say to them, &quot;Sir, you have to leave, because this is our land,&quot; it is a risk. And it has been this way for a while. They are loggers. They have arms. They have everything. And they are never going to pay attention to us. We know who they are and how they act. So we need the support of government institutions to protect the region at the border with Brazil.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s Edwin Chota. He was killed in September along with Jorge Ríos, Francisco Pinedo and Leoncio Quinticima. Well, here in Lima, I spoke with Chota&#8217;s widow, Julia Pérez, and with Ergilia Rengifo, the widow of Jorge Ríos, about the assassinations and the work their husbands were doing.
AMY GOODMAN : You&#8217;re breast-feeding your baby. Can you tell me his name and when he was born?
JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] His name is Edwin Tom Chota, Edwin Chota, and he was born on November 10th.
AMY GOODMAN : He is the baby of your slain husband, Edwin Chota?
JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] Sí .
AMY GOODMAN : Julia, what should we know about your husband Edwin Chota&#8217;s work?
JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] Edwin was dedicated to the community of Saweto. He spent his whole life and all of his time in defending the community, coming here to Lima, going to Pucallpa, writing documents, bringing documents to the government agencies and doing what he could for the community. The community would support him here and there with a bit of money to help him out, but basically he just dedicated his life to the community and to obtaining our title.
AMY GOODMAN : Ergilia, you, too, lost her husband. You will soon be elected leader of your community. Talk about what happened on September 1st, as you understand it. What happened to these four men?
ERGILIA RENGIFO LÓPEZ: [translated] My name is Ergilia Rengifo López, and I&#8217;m here in Lima, and I&#8217;d like to tell you the reasons why we&#8217;re here and why our husbands were killed. It saddens me greatly that these four leaders of our community of Alto Tamaya-Saweto—I am one of the representatives of Saweto. It saddens me greatly that our four leaders—Edwin Chota, Jorge Ríos Pérez, Francisco and Leoncio—were killed. It saddens me greatly because they leave a great hole, and they leave us as widows and their children without fathers. They fought for the conservation of their lands. They fought for their land rights, for their title. They repeatedly asked the government for their title. The government never paid any attention to them, despite multiple requests. And they also fought against illegal logging on our lands.
AMY GOODMAN : Who killed them?
ERGILIA RENGIFO LÓPEZ: [translated] The people who killed our husbands were illegal loggers, Brazilians, who operate in that region, who we&#8217;ve denounced multiple times, but the government does nothing to stop the situation that&#8217;s going on there. We protect our forests. We depend on our forests for fish, for the resources that are in the forest. We don&#8217;t live in the city. We don&#8217;t go to the supermarket. That is where we get what we need to live. We take care of the rivers, because if you cut all the trees, the rivers dry up. So we protect the forests, that the rivers, where we get our fish, where we use the water, that we depend on.
So that&#8217;s why we have come here to the COP , is to ask for support, support to protect our forests and, first of all, to title our lands. We&#8217;re asking the government to title our lands, but it hasn&#8217;t paid attention to us. But that&#8217;s what we&#8217;re here to request. We also are asking for pensions, because our families have been left without support. Our husbands have been killed. And we need support. I have six children. You know, I need to feed them. I need to get them what they need. So, this kind of support from the government is what we need.
AMY GOODMAN : Ergilia Rengifo and Julia Pérez, their husbands Edwin Chota and Jorge Ríos were killed in September along with two other Peruvian environmental activists.
That does it for our broadcast today. As we wrap up today&#8217;s program, we&#8217;ll be bringing you broadcasts throughout the week from the U.N. climate summit . It&#8217;s called COP 20, the Conference of Parties, the binding summit next year in Paris, France.
Democracy Now! is produced by Mike Burke, Renée Feltz, Aaron Maté, Nermeen Shaikh, Steve Martinez, Sam Alcoff, Hany Massoud, Robby Karran, Deena Guzder, Amy Littlefield. Mike DiFilippo and Miguel Nogueira are our engineers. Special thanks to Becca Staley, Julie Crosby, Clara Ibarra, Andrés Conteris, Denis Moynihan, Hugh Gran, Jessica Lee, David Prude.
And our website is democracynow.org. There you can see all of our coverage of climate change, from the People&#8217;s Climate March in September, our three-hour broadcast special, everything leading up to today, as well as our past coverage of the climate summits, from Copenhagen to Cancún , from Doha to Durban , as well as the peoples&#8217; summit that took place in Bolivia . We&#8217;re here all week in Lima, Peru . AMYGOODMAN: We turn right now to the story of Edwin Chota, in his own words. He was a leading environmental activist and had been profiled in National Geographic. Shortly before his death, he called for greater protection from the government for communities such as his own and described how his life had been threatened.

EDWINCHOTA: [translated] It is a risk of life or death for us, because if I stand in front of them, in front of the loggers, to represent my community and say to them, "Sir, you have to leave, because this is our land," it is a risk. And it has been this way for a while. They are loggers. They have arms. They have everything. And they are never going to pay attention to us. We know who they are and how they act. So we need the support of government institutions to protect the region at the border with Brazil.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s Edwin Chota. He was killed in September along with Jorge Ríos, Francisco Pinedo and Leoncio Quinticima. Well, here in Lima, I spoke with Chota’s widow, Julia Pérez, and with Ergilia Rengifo, the widow of Jorge Ríos, about the assassinations and the work their husbands were doing.

AMYGOODMAN: You’re breast-feeding your baby. Can you tell me his name and when he was born?

JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] His name is Edwin Tom Chota, Edwin Chota, and he was born on November 10th.

AMYGOODMAN: He is the baby of your slain husband, Edwin Chota?

JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] Sí.

AMYGOODMAN: Julia, what should we know about your husband Edwin Chota’s work?

JULIA PÉREZ: [translated] Edwin was dedicated to the community of Saweto. He spent his whole life and all of his time in defending the community, coming here to Lima, going to Pucallpa, writing documents, bringing documents to the government agencies and doing what he could for the community. The community would support him here and there with a bit of money to help him out, but basically he just dedicated his life to the community and to obtaining our title.

AMYGOODMAN: Ergilia, you, too, lost her husband. You will soon be elected leader of your community. Talk about what happened on September 1st, as you understand it. What happened to these four men?

ERGILIARENGIFO LÓPEZ: [translated] My name is Ergilia Rengifo López, and I’m here in Lima, and I’d like to tell you the reasons why we’re here and why our husbands were killed. It saddens me greatly that these four leaders of our community of Alto Tamaya-Saweto—I am one of the representatives of Saweto. It saddens me greatly that our four leaders—Edwin Chota, Jorge Ríos Pérez, Francisco and Leoncio—were killed. It saddens me greatly because they leave a great hole, and they leave us as widows and their children without fathers. They fought for the conservation of their lands. They fought for their land rights, for their title. They repeatedly asked the government for their title. The government never paid any attention to them, despite multiple requests. And they also fought against illegal logging on our lands.

AMYGOODMAN: Who killed them?

ERGILIARENGIFO LÓPEZ: [translated] The people who killed our husbands were illegal loggers, Brazilians, who operate in that region, who we’ve denounced multiple times, but the government does nothing to stop the situation that’s going on there. We protect our forests. We depend on our forests for fish, for the resources that are in the forest. We don’t live in the city. We don’t go to the supermarket. That is where we get what we need to live. We take care of the rivers, because if you cut all the trees, the rivers dry up. So we protect the forests, that the rivers, where we get our fish, where we use the water, that we depend on.

So that’s why we have come here to the COP, is to ask for support, support to protect our forests and, first of all, to title our lands. We’re asking the government to title our lands, but it hasn’t paid attention to us. But that’s what we’re here to request. We also are asking for pensions, because our families have been left without support. Our husbands have been killed. And we need support. I have six children. You know, I need to feed them. I need to get them what they need. So, this kind of support from the government is what we need.

AMYGOODMAN: Ergilia Rengifo and Julia Pérez, their husbands Edwin Chota and Jorge Ríos were killed in September along with two other Peruvian environmental activists.

That does it for our broadcast today. As we wrap up today’s program, we’ll be bringing you broadcasts throughout the week from the U.N. climate summit. It’s called COP 20, the Conference of Parties, the binding summit next year in Paris, France.

And our website is democracynow.org. There you can see all of our coverage of climate change, from the People’s Climate March in September, our three-hour broadcast special, everything leading up to today, as well as our past coverage of the climate summits, from Copenhagen to Cancún, from Doha to Durban, as well as the peoples’ summit that took place in Bolivia. We’re here all week in Lima, Peru.

]]>
Mon, 08 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500As Sioux Tribe Calls Keystone XL an "Act of War", TransCanada Hires PR Firm to Probe Criticshttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/19/as_sioux_tribe_calls_keystone_xl
tag:democracynow.org,2014-11-19:en/story/0f2ba2 AMY GOODMAN : &quot;No KXL &quot; by Bethany and Rufus. They were singing at a rally in downtown Manhattan ahead of Tuesday&#8217;s Senate&#8217;s vote on the Keystone XL pipeline. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, in a dramatic showdown Tuesday, the Senate narrowly missed a 60-vote threshold required to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Fourteen Democrats supported the measure along with all 45 Republicans. With just 59 aye votes, the measure failed to pass. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren announced the tally.
SEN . ELIZABETH WARREN : Any senator wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote? If not, on this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 41. The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the bill is not passed.
LAKOTA MAN : [singing]
SEN . ELIZABETH WARREN : Sergeant-at-arms will restore order. Order in the gallery.
AMY GOODMAN : After the vote was recorded, a man reportedly with the Lakota Tribe of South Dakota burst out in song, followed by protesters who called out Democrats who voted in support of the pipeline. The Keystone XL bill was sponsored by Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who faces a battle to keep her seat in a runoff next month against Republican Congressmember Bill Cassidy, who&#8217;s a sponsor of the pro-Keystone bill in the House. Senator Landrieu tried to rally her fellow Democrats during the debate before Tuesday&#8217;s vote.
SEN . MARY LANDRIEU : I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with our partners in Canada and Mexico, this can be done. And North America can be the super-energy powerhouse of the planet. What people in Louisiana want, what people in Texas want, what people in Mississippi want, what people in New Jersey want, what people in South Dakota and Illinois and Kansas and Vermont, are good-paying jobs.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Among the Democrats who refused Senator Landrieu&#8217;s plea was Senator Barbara Boxer of California. She said Keystone XL stood for &quot;extra lethal.&quot; Boxer spoke moments before the vote.
SEN . BARBARA BOXER : I&#8217;m telling you, Madam President, as sure as I&#8217;m standing here, when the nurses stood with me and the public health doctors stood with me, and they said, &quot;You know what? Let&#8217;s be very careful here, because this pipeline is going to unleash 45 percent more of the dirtiest, filthiest oil.&quot; And that&#8217;s why I call it the &quot;Keystone extra lethal&quot; pipeline. And I hope we won&#8217;t vote it up today. I hope we&#8217;ll vote it down. I hope the president will veto it if it passes. And I will be on my feet, because I came here to protect people like this. Thank you, and I yield the floor.
AMY GOODMAN : Senator Boxer was pointing to a large photograph next to her of a girl wearing an oxygen mask.
After Tuesday&#8217;s vote, Republicans vowed to immediately bring the bill back in January, when they&#8217;ll hold the Senate majority. This comes as newly leaked documents reveal TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, is engaged in a &quot;perpetual campaign&quot; to mobilize support for an entirely Canadian pipeline that could bypass opposition in the United States.
For more, we&#8217;re joined by two guests. In Washington, D.C., Cyril Scott is with us, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. And in Dallas, Suzanne Goldenberg is with us, U.S. environmental correspondent for The Guardian . Her recent piece is headlined &quot;Revealed: Keystone company&#8217;s PR blitz to safeguard its backup plan.&quot;
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Before we go to the documents, Cyril Scott, let&#8217;s start with you. Can you talk about your response to the defeat of Keystone XL—at least for now?
CYRIL SCOTT : First of all, good morning. Yeah, it was a great thing that happened yesterday. I want to thank all the people that voted to oppose it. But as we all know, the fight has just begun. The Republicans take the House in January. So, the fight has just started. We have to gear up and be ready and start our own campaign to make sure we secure enough support to stop this black snake that&#8217;s going to harm not only Indian country, but the United States of America.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You&#8217;ve declared the XL pipeline, if it goes through, a declaration of war against your people. Could you talk about why you feel that way?
CYRIL SCOTT : Yes, because we have to take care of our children and our grandchildren, as we are proposing to do, not only our children and our grandchildren, your children, your grandchildren. This thing is going to affect the biggest—the second-largest water aquifer in the world, the Ogallala Aquifer. We have to protect that at all costs to give your children and our children good, clean drinking water. Without that, you just can&#8217;t imagine what would happen if that Ogallala Aquifer was contaminated. It supplies water to six states here in the United States. It is one of the major water fairways here in the United States.
AMY GOODMAN : Suzanne Goldenberg, can you talk about the documents that were just revealed and how they were?
SUZANNE GOLDENBERG : Well, the documents were obtained originally by Greenpeace Canada, which made them available to The Guardian and other news outlets. And these are interesting because they&#8217;re strategy documents drawn up by Edelman public relations, which is, you know, the biggest privately held PR firm in the world and was advising TransCanada on how to beat back opposition and get this second pipeline route through, through Canada.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That indicates that—the documents indicate, at least, that the company was already realizing that it was facing defeat coming through the United States. And Edelman has talked about employing as many as 40 people from its staff to work for the company to build so-called grassroots support for a new route to the east?
SUZANNE GOLDENBERG : I don&#8217;t know. You know, I&#8217;m not privy to the inner thoughts of TransCanada. I don&#8217;t know whether they think that this is going to be defeated, but they aren&#8217;t taking any chances, and neither is the Canadian government or the oil companies that are invested in the Alberta tar sands. There is a tremendous pressure for the energy industry to get that tar sands oil out, to get it to market, because they can&#8217;t now. This is a tremendous source of carbon, and it&#8217;s landlocked, so they are looking for—you know, for routes to market anywhere.
And so, to doing that, you know, stung by the huge opposition that they encountered in—to the Keystone project, which has put that project on ice for six years, they&#8217;ve started to sort of get to place not—it goes beyond public relations, but a big sort of plan to get a second route through. They&#8217;re talking about mobilizing 34,000 activists. There&#8217;s a budget for mobilizing those activists in the strategy documents. They sort of say they need to apply intelligent pressure on community groups, environmental groups and scientific groups in Canada to—you know, essentially, opposition research to sort of stop them from coming out and saying why this pipeline is a bad idea, this pipeline that would go through Canada, in this case. So there&#8217;s a very big campaign here that goes far beyond what most people would think of as public relations. This isn&#8217;t about buying a few ads on TV. It&#8217;s not just about a website. It&#8217;s about a big astroturfing campaign to defeat this—to get this project through.
AMY GOODMAN : One part of the leaked documents, titled &quot;Detailed Background Research on Key Opposition Groups,&quot; reads, quote, &quot;We will prepare a research profile of key opposition groups by examining public records ... traditional media sources ... and social media ... All relevant findings will be compiled in a written, fully documented report, to include a summary of findings and an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. We will begin with the Council of Canadians. Other possibilities include Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, Avaaz and Ecology Ottawa.&quot; Suzanne Goldenberg?
SUZANNE GOLDENBERG : Yes, that&#8217;s true. I mean, this is what would pass for—in, you know, political circles, this is opposition research. They&#8217;re trying to find out potential weak points on their opponents to use these to discredit their opponents, you know. And there&#8217;s another section in there where they talk about—where they talk about scientific reports, very fleetingly, you know, that would show that this project would be a bad idea because it would open up the tar sands to further development, and it would make climate change a lot worse. Some of the information they propose digging up is financial information. So, there&#8217;s a strategy here that hints at discrediting and embarrassing anybody who speaks up against this Energy East project, this alternative pipeline through Canada.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cyril Scott, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, I wanted to ask you about the recent signals from the White House, President Obama seeming a lot more skeptical about the pipeline, and then some unnamed sources saying after today&#8217;s vote that even if the Senate tries to bring it back up in January with the new Republican majority, that the president is likely to veto that, because he wants instead for a—he doesn&#8217;t want the Congress making this decision. He wants the scientific study and his final decision to hold sway. Are you encouraged by that?
CYRIL SCOTT : Yes, I am. I really encourage Native Americans—Indian country has put a lot of stock in our president, President Obama, so we support him, as he supports us today. And we are very excited that he has this veto power within him and that he is going to do the right thing, not only for Indian country, but for all Americans.
AMY GOODMAN : Suzanne Goldenberg, you report Edelman, the world&#8217;s privately—biggest privately held PR firm, has previously been drawn into controversies about its position on climate change. And you said that it declared on August 7th it would no longer take on campaigns that deny global warming. What is the Keystone XL relationship with global warming, as the Senate clearly will take this up again when Republicans control the Senate in just a few weeks?
SUZANNE GOLDENBERG : Well, absolutely. The Alberta tar sands are one of the biggest stores of carbon on the planet, and the science on this is very clear. We cannot dig up all this oil and hope to avoid catastrophic climate change. There&#8217;s going to be a report coming out from the U.N. Environment Program in a couple of hours, later today, and it&#8217;s going to make that point again. We are on a road to busting through our carbon budgets. We&#8217;re burning up this oil much too fast, creating far too many greenhouse gas emissions, and we are not meeting the targets that science tells us we need to reach to avoid dangerous effects of climate change.
AMY GOODMAN : And, Cyril Scott, usually in South Dakota, now in Washington, your next step at this point? Mary Landrieu pushed very hard. She was also pushing for her own Senate seat. She&#8217;s in a runoff, and her opponent, a congressman, is the sponsor of the pro-Keystone XL pipeline bill in the House. What you&#8217;re planning to do? How you&#8217;re strategizing?
CYRIL SCOTT : Right now, we&#8217;re calling for the Oceti Sakowin, the Great Sioux Nation, to gather a couple—next week there in Rosebud to start our strategy, not only with the Great Sioux Nation, but also Bold Nebraska, 350.org and all of our supporters. We&#8217;re going to come up with a game plan also to keep the fight going. And all means, we need to stop this Keystone XL pipeline. We talk about jobs. It&#8217;s only—the CEO said it only creates 50 jobs. These are temporary jobs that go to journeymen, not to local economy. It&#8217;s people that are—I call them transients, that will be flooding into our state and onto our reservations to do harm within our state and our reservations.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re going to leave it there, but we&#8217;ll continue to cover this issue, of course. Cyril Scott, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, and Suzanne Goldenberg with The Guardian . We&#8217;ll link to your piece . She&#8217;s speaking to us from Dallas. AMYGOODMAN: "No KXL" by Bethany and Rufus. They were singing at a rally in downtown Manhattan ahead of Tuesday’s Senate’s vote on the Keystone XL pipeline. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, in a dramatic showdown Tuesday, the Senate narrowly missed a 60-vote threshold required to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Fourteen Democrats supported the measure along with all 45 Republicans. With just 59 aye votes, the measure failed to pass. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren announced the tally.

SEN. ELIZABETHWARREN: Any senator wishing to vote or wishing to change a vote? If not, on this vote, the yeas are 59, the nays are 41. The 60-vote threshold having not been achieved, the bill is not passed.

LAKOTAMAN: [singing]

SEN. ELIZABETHWARREN: Sergeant-at-arms will restore order. Order in the gallery.

AMYGOODMAN: After the vote was recorded, a man reportedly with the Lakota Tribe of South Dakota burst out in song, followed by protesters who called out Democrats who voted in support of the pipeline. The Keystone XL bill was sponsored by Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who faces a battle to keep her seat in a runoff next month against Republican Congressmember Bill Cassidy, who’s a sponsor of the pro-Keystone bill in the House. Senator Landrieu tried to rally her fellow Democrats during the debate before Tuesday’s vote.

SEN. MARYLANDRIEU: I know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that with our partners in Canada and Mexico, this can be done. And North America can be the super-energy powerhouse of the planet. What people in Louisiana want, what people in Texas want, what people in Mississippi want, what people in New Jersey want, what people in South Dakota and Illinois and Kansas and Vermont, are good-paying jobs.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Among the Democrats who refused Senator Landrieu’s plea was Senator Barbara Boxer of California. She said Keystone XL stood for "extra lethal." Boxer spoke moments before the vote.

SEN. BARBARABOXER: I’m telling you, Madam President, as sure as I’m standing here, when the nurses stood with me and the public health doctors stood with me, and they said, "You know what? Let’s be very careful here, because this pipeline is going to unleash 45 percent more of the dirtiest, filthiest oil." And that’s why I call it the "Keystone extra lethal" pipeline. And I hope we won’t vote it up today. I hope we’ll vote it down. I hope the president will veto it if it passes. And I will be on my feet, because I came here to protect people like this. Thank you, and I yield the floor.

AMYGOODMAN: Senator Boxer was pointing to a large photograph next to her of a girl wearing an oxygen mask.

After Tuesday’s vote, Republicans vowed to immediately bring the bill back in January, when they’ll hold the Senate majority. This comes as newly leaked documents reveal TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline, is engaged in a "perpetual campaign" to mobilize support for an entirely Canadian pipeline that could bypass opposition in the United States.

For more, we’re joined by two guests. In Washington, D.C., Cyril Scott is with us, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota. And in Dallas, Suzanne Goldenberg is with us, U.S. environmental correspondent for The Guardian. Her recent piece is headlined "Revealed: Keystone company’s PR blitz to safeguard its backup plan."

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Before we go to the documents, Cyril Scott, let’s start with you. Can you talk about your response to the defeat of Keystone XL—at least for now?

CYRILSCOTT: First of all, good morning. Yeah, it was a great thing that happened yesterday. I want to thank all the people that voted to oppose it. But as we all know, the fight has just begun. The Republicans take the House in January. So, the fight has just started. We have to gear up and be ready and start our own campaign to make sure we secure enough support to stop this black snake that’s going to harm not only Indian country, but the United States of America.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: You’ve declared the XL pipeline, if it goes through, a declaration of war against your people. Could you talk about why you feel that way?

CYRILSCOTT: Yes, because we have to take care of our children and our grandchildren, as we are proposing to do, not only our children and our grandchildren, your children, your grandchildren. This thing is going to affect the biggest—the second-largest water aquifer in the world, the Ogallala Aquifer. We have to protect that at all costs to give your children and our children good, clean drinking water. Without that, you just can’t imagine what would happen if that Ogallala Aquifer was contaminated. It supplies water to six states here in the United States. It is one of the major water fairways here in the United States.

AMYGOODMAN: Suzanne Goldenberg, can you talk about the documents that were just revealed and how they were?

SUZANNEGOLDENBERG: Well, the documents were obtained originally by Greenpeace Canada, which made them available to The Guardian and other news outlets. And these are interesting because they’re strategy documents drawn up by Edelman public relations, which is, you know, the biggest privately held PR firm in the world and was advising TransCanada on how to beat back opposition and get this second pipeline route through, through Canada.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That indicates that—the documents indicate, at least, that the company was already realizing that it was facing defeat coming through the United States. And Edelman has talked about employing as many as 40 people from its staff to work for the company to build so-called grassroots support for a new route to the east?

SUZANNEGOLDENBERG: I don’t know. You know, I’m not privy to the inner thoughts of TransCanada. I don’t know whether they think that this is going to be defeated, but they aren’t taking any chances, and neither is the Canadian government or the oil companies that are invested in the Alberta tar sands. There is a tremendous pressure for the energy industry to get that tar sands oil out, to get it to market, because they can’t now. This is a tremendous source of carbon, and it’s landlocked, so they are looking for—you know, for routes to market anywhere.

And so, to doing that, you know, stung by the huge opposition that they encountered in—to the Keystone project, which has put that project on ice for six years, they’ve started to sort of get to place not—it goes beyond public relations, but a big sort of plan to get a second route through. They’re talking about mobilizing 34,000 activists. There’s a budget for mobilizing those activists in the strategy documents. They sort of say they need to apply intelligent pressure on community groups, environmental groups and scientific groups in Canada to—you know, essentially, opposition research to sort of stop them from coming out and saying why this pipeline is a bad idea, this pipeline that would go through Canada, in this case. So there’s a very big campaign here that goes far beyond what most people would think of as public relations. This isn’t about buying a few ads on TV. It’s not just about a website. It’s about a big astroturfing campaign to defeat this—to get this project through.

AMYGOODMAN: One part of the leaked documents, titled "Detailed Background Research on Key Opposition Groups," reads, quote, "We will prepare a research profile of key opposition groups by examining public records ... traditional media sources ... and social media ... All relevant findings will be compiled in a written, fully documented report, to include a summary of findings and an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. We will begin with the Council of Canadians. Other possibilities include Equiterre, the David Suzuki Foundation, Avaaz and Ecology Ottawa." Suzanne Goldenberg?

SUZANNEGOLDENBERG: Yes, that’s true. I mean, this is what would pass for—in, you know, political circles, this is opposition research. They’re trying to find out potential weak points on their opponents to use these to discredit their opponents, you know. And there’s another section in there where they talk about—where they talk about scientific reports, very fleetingly, you know, that would show that this project would be a bad idea because it would open up the tar sands to further development, and it would make climate change a lot worse. Some of the information they propose digging up is financial information. So, there’s a strategy here that hints at discrediting and embarrassing anybody who speaks up against this Energy East project, this alternative pipeline through Canada.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Cyril Scott, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, I wanted to ask you about the recent signals from the White House, President Obama seeming a lot more skeptical about the pipeline, and then some unnamed sources saying after today’s vote that even if the Senate tries to bring it back up in January with the new Republican majority, that the president is likely to veto that, because he wants instead for a—he doesn’t want the Congress making this decision. He wants the scientific study and his final decision to hold sway. Are you encouraged by that?

CYRILSCOTT: Yes, I am. I really encourage Native Americans—Indian country has put a lot of stock in our president, President Obama, so we support him, as he supports us today. And we are very excited that he has this veto power within him and that he is going to do the right thing, not only for Indian country, but for all Americans.

AMYGOODMAN: Suzanne Goldenberg, you report Edelman, the world’s privately—biggest privately held PR firm, has previously been drawn into controversies about its position on climate change. And you said that it declared on August 7th it would no longer take on campaigns that deny global warming. What is the Keystone XL relationship with global warming, as the Senate clearly will take this up again when Republicans control the Senate in just a few weeks?

SUZANNEGOLDENBERG: Well, absolutely. The Alberta tar sands are one of the biggest stores of carbon on the planet, and the science on this is very clear. We cannot dig up all this oil and hope to avoid catastrophic climate change. There’s going to be a report coming out from the U.N. Environment Program in a couple of hours, later today, and it’s going to make that point again. We are on a road to busting through our carbon budgets. We’re burning up this oil much too fast, creating far too many greenhouse gas emissions, and we are not meeting the targets that science tells us we need to reach to avoid dangerous effects of climate change.

AMYGOODMAN: And, Cyril Scott, usually in South Dakota, now in Washington, your next step at this point? Mary Landrieu pushed very hard. She was also pushing for her own Senate seat. She’s in a runoff, and her opponent, a congressman, is the sponsor of the pro-Keystone XL pipeline bill in the House. What you’re planning to do? How you’re strategizing?

CYRILSCOTT: Right now, we’re calling for the Oceti Sakowin, the Great Sioux Nation, to gather a couple—next week there in Rosebud to start our strategy, not only with the Great Sioux Nation, but also Bold Nebraska, 350.org and all of our supporters. We’re going to come up with a game plan also to keep the fight going. And all means, we need to stop this Keystone XL pipeline. We talk about jobs. It’s only—the CEO said it only creates 50 jobs. These are temporary jobs that go to journeymen, not to local economy. It’s people that are—I call them transients, that will be flooding into our state and onto our reservations to do harm within our state and our reservations.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re going to leave it there, but we’ll continue to cover this issue, of course. Cyril Scott, president of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, and Suzanne Goldenberg with The Guardian. We’ll link to your piece. She’s speaking to us from Dallas.

]]>
Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 -0500Seattle Marks Indigenous Peoples' Day Amid Calls to End Federal Holiday Celebrating Columbushttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/10/13/seattle_marks_indigenous_people_s_day
tag:democracynow.org,2014-10-13:en/story/973364 AMY GOODMAN : Today marks Columbus Day, a federal holiday to commemorate the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the so-called &quot;New World&quot; in 1492. But the holiday has long evoked sadness and anger among Native Americans, who object to honoring a man who opened the door to European colonization, the exploitation of native peoples, and the slave trade. Their outrage has led to campaigns like this one.
RECONSIDER COLUMBUS DAY AD: Columbus committed heinous crimes against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean and millions of natives throughout the Americas. And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World. So, please, please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor. Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus. It&#8217;s not your fault; it happened a long time ago. But remaining neutral and pretending like it didn&#8217;t happen, or that it doesn&#8217;t still impact us today? So, please, take a day to learn the whole story. Celebrate the people who were here first. Petition for a nationally recognized indigenous holiday.
AMY GOODMAN : ReconsiderColumbus.org, that project. Well, last Monday, the Seattle City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to celebrate the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples&#8217; Day. Seattle is not the first place to give the holiday another name. This year, the Minneapolis City Council also renamed Columbus Day Indigenous Peoples&#8217; Day. In South Dakota, the holiday is celebrated as Native American Day, while Hawaii observes Discoverers&#8217; Day, which honors Polynesian explorers.
For more, we go to Seattle, Washington, where we&#8217;re joined by the Socialist city councilmember, Kshama Sawant, one of the sponsors of the resolution to celebrate Indigenous Peoples&#8217; Day, that passed. Since taking office in January, she has also helped win a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle. She&#8217;s a member of the Socialist Alternative, a nationwide organization of social and economic justice activists.
Kshama Sawant, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about this resolution that you got passed in the Seattle City Council.
KSHAMA SAWANT : Well, thank you for having me here, Amy. And first of all, I should say all the thanks for the amazing resolution we&#8217;ve passed go to the indigenous activists themselves, who brought this forward. And it&#8217;s an important milestone that we&#8217;ve had in all these cities—Berkeley in 1992, Minneapolis, Seattle and so on—because we&#8217;re making sure that we acknowledge the absolute horrors of colonization and conquering that happened in the Americas at the hands of the European so-called explorers. And Columbus was one of the primary instigators. He was a prolific slave owner. He was, not only single-handedly, but as a part of this European mission to plunder and pillage, responsible for mass enslavement and a genocide, which reduced the population of the indigenous communities from anywhere close to 150 million to a few thousand in just a mere matter of decades.
And I think we should clarify that some people have seen this as a slight against Italian Americans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As a matter of fact, we should celebrate an Italian Heritage Day to celebrate the culture of the Italian community and also to celebrate the wonderful, courageous work that Italian Americans have done in their fight against racism, in their leading work in the early labor movements of the United States and the work they&#8217;re doing today as social justice activists.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to get your response to some who were critical of this being passed. Among them, the criticism of the resolution, Seattle resident Ralph Fascitelli, who is Italian-American, said, quote, &quot;We don&#8217;t argue with the idea of Indigenous Peoples&#8217; Day. We do have a big problem of it coming at the expense of what essentially is Italian Heritage Day. This is a big insult to those of us of Italian heritage. We feel disrespected. America wouldn&#8217;t be America without Christopher Columbus,&quot; he said. Your response, Kshama Sawant?
KSHAMA SAWANT : Well, I would say that most Italians would not equate Columbus Day to Italian Heritage Day. I don&#8217;t, in my mind, and the indigenous community do not equate Columbus Day to Italian Heritage Day. Columbus Day is a celebration of Columbus, and the story we&#8217;re told was that, you know, Columbus was an explorer, you know, a really intrepid person who really went on an adventure, and that&#8217;s supposed to be inspiring to us. But unfortunately, that is based on a lie. That idea of Columbus as an explorer is based on a lie. Columbus did not discover America. He plundered it, and he brutalized its people. And so, I would think that people, in general, whether they&#8217;re Italian or indigenous or any ethnicity, would want to align themselves with people who have stood for social justice, not somebody who represents a symbol of massacre and plunder. And I think that most Italian Americans that we&#8217;ve heard from, you know, through phone, from City Council and people that I run into, most of the people who are from the Italian-American community have thanked us for doing this and for representing their true ideas, that they do not want to celebrate somebody who is a symbol of racism and mass murder, and it really—you know, it really is an abomination.
But let&#8217;s come together to bring about an Italian Heritage Day and make sure that we don&#8217;t let this sort of thing, this sort of idea, this mythical idea that Columbus was an explorer, divide us. We all need to come together. In fact, if we look at what&#8217;s happening around us—you were just reporting about Ferguson—everything that&#8217;s happening around us is showing us that more and more people are realizing that, in general, this system of capitalism, that rests on a history of slavery and colonialism and continues the exploitation and war and violence to this day, is not working for us. We need an alternative. There&#8217;s never been a better time for us to be united and fight for socialism, fight against corporate domination.
AMY GOODMAN : Historian and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has written an open letter to President Obama asking him to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples&#8217; Day. She ends the letter with this call to action: quote, &quot;It&#8217;s time for the United States government to make a gesture toward acknowledgement of its colonial past and a commitment to decolonization. Doing away with the celebration of Columbus, the very face of European colonialism, could be that gesture. In its place proclaim that fateful date of the onset of colonialism as a Day of Solidarity and Mourning with the Indigenous Peoples.&quot; Can you comment on this and whether President Obama has responded?
KSHAMA SAWANT : I don&#8217;t know that President Obama has responded. And in fact, I would not be surprised if he did not by himself, in the sense that it will need a mass movement that supports the demand of the indigenous community to revoke Columbus Day, because any change that the indigenous community or any other marginalized community has obtained, it&#8217;s been because of our own courage, because our own dedication for our willingness to step up and fight back. And the resolution that we have passed in Seattle, I see that as a part of that nationwide process to bring about justice to the indigenous community, not only in the form of a symbolic reparation, but actual changes. We want this resolution to be a building block to start a conversation, a real debate about why is it that we see such poverty, unemployment and such brutalization of our indigenous communities even today.
And I think that this conversation is much broader than it might appear on the surface. I mean, we are just coming back, Amy, you and I; we were at the People&#8217;s Climate March on September 21st. The question of climate change, the question of resource sustainability and who owns the resources and who gets to pay the price for the plunder of our natural resources, that issue is global, but it&#8217;s also connected to the fate of the indigenous communities. And they are some of the most—they have been some of the most courageous fighters against the Keystone XL pipeline, here in Washington against a Cherry Point coal terminal. So they are engaged in a fight against poverty, against marginalization. They&#8217;re also engaged in a fight against corporate domination, against the domination of Big Oil and Big Coal. And all over South America, all over the Amazon, we see indigenous activists courageously fighting back. Sometimes, you know, they have to pay with their life.
So I think we have to—now, our task on the left is to join these movements together, give a much more amplified voice to the struggles of the indigenous communities, by realizing that their struggle is connected to the black struggle in Ferguson, is connected to the struggle of women against sexism and sexual violence, is connected to the struggle of workers overall for workplace justice, and build a larger—a larger team of movements, an explosive era of social movements.
AMY GOODMAN : It&#8217;s interesting, an interesting connection you have to this issue. You come from India, Kshama Sawant. Christopher Columbus thought he was in India, which is why we call Native Americans Indians, is that right? Can you talk about that history?
KSHAMA SAWANT : That&#8217;s correct. Columbus was headed on a route to India. And again, the reason that they were headed to India is also very much connected to the need for a vast base of cheap, or preferably free, natural resources, free labor and extensive markets. I mean, this whole process of colonization, through which the Americas were colonized, through which my own continent in South Asia was colonized, Africa and South America experienced conquest, all of this process was not incidental. It was not because there were a few wantonly cruel people in that century. It happened because the early development of capitalism required those resources. It required to expend itself in that way. And capitalism in the early days also required slavery. It required these open markets. It required to establish monoculture, and that implied that they had to militarily control the land that they ended up occupying. In that way, India has had a similar history to the Americas, because we were also colonized by the Europeans and ultimately by a really well-established British Empire. And Indian people had to build strong movements—many of those movements were led by socialists—to gain independence.
But what we see right now, you know, in all of these continents, these neocolonial countries, we see that cycle of plunder and exploitation being repeated over and over again. You see this pattern going on over and over again. And I think the question we have to ask is: How long are we going to accept this, you know, inevitability in a system that will go on generating this cycle of poverty and exploitation and war, where more and more marginalized communities are going to be paying the price? So, I think this raises the larger question of systemic change that we need to talk about. AMYGOODMAN: Today marks Columbus Day, a federal holiday to commemorate the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the so-called "New World" in 1492. But the holiday has long evoked sadness and anger among Native Americans, who object to honoring a man who opened the door to European colonization, the exploitation of native peoples, and the slave trade. Their outrage has led to campaigns like this one.

RECONSIDERCOLUMBUSDAY AD: Columbus committed heinous crimes against the indigenous peoples of the Caribbean and millions of natives throughout the Americas. And Columbus set the stage for the slave trade in the New World. So, please, please reconsider if this is a man you want to honor. Reconsider if you want to celebrate the crimes of Columbus. It’s not your fault; it happened a long time ago. But remaining neutral and pretending like it didn’t happen, or that it doesn’t still impact us today? So, please, take a day to learn the whole story. Celebrate the people who were here first. Petition for a nationally recognized indigenous holiday.

AMYGOODMAN: ReconsiderColumbus.org, that project. Well, last Monday, the Seattle City Council unanimously adopted a resolution to celebrate the second Monday in October as Indigenous Peoples’ Day. Seattle is not the first place to give the holiday another name. This year, the Minneapolis City Council also renamed Columbus Day Indigenous Peoples’ Day. In South Dakota, the holiday is celebrated as Native American Day, while Hawaii observes Discoverers’ Day, which honors Polynesian explorers.

For more, we go to Seattle, Washington, where we’re joined by the Socialist city councilmember, Kshama Sawant, one of the sponsors of the resolution to celebrate Indigenous Peoples’ Day, that passed. Since taking office in January, she has also helped win a $15-an-hour minimum wage for all workers in Seattle. She’s a member of the Socialist Alternative, a nationwide organization of social and economic justice activists.

Kshama Sawant, welcome back to Democracy Now! Talk about this resolution that you got passed in the Seattle City Council.

KSHAMASAWANT: Well, thank you for having me here, Amy. And first of all, I should say all the thanks for the amazing resolution we’ve passed go to the indigenous activists themselves, who brought this forward. And it’s an important milestone that we’ve had in all these cities—Berkeley in 1992, Minneapolis, Seattle and so on—because we’re making sure that we acknowledge the absolute horrors of colonization and conquering that happened in the Americas at the hands of the European so-called explorers. And Columbus was one of the primary instigators. He was a prolific slave owner. He was, not only single-handedly, but as a part of this European mission to plunder and pillage, responsible for mass enslavement and a genocide, which reduced the population of the indigenous communities from anywhere close to 150 million to a few thousand in just a mere matter of decades.

And I think we should clarify that some people have seen this as a slight against Italian Americans. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As a matter of fact, we should celebrate an Italian Heritage Day to celebrate the culture of the Italian community and also to celebrate the wonderful, courageous work that Italian Americans have done in their fight against racism, in their leading work in the early labor movements of the United States and the work they’re doing today as social justice activists.

AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to get your response to some who were critical of this being passed. Among them, the criticism of the resolution, Seattle resident Ralph Fascitelli, who is Italian-American, said, quote, "We don’t argue with the idea of Indigenous Peoples’ Day. We do have a big problem of it coming at the expense of what essentially is Italian Heritage Day. This is a big insult to those of us of Italian heritage. We feel disrespected. America wouldn’t be America without Christopher Columbus," he said. Your response, Kshama Sawant?

KSHAMASAWANT: Well, I would say that most Italians would not equate Columbus Day to Italian Heritage Day. I don’t, in my mind, and the indigenous community do not equate Columbus Day to Italian Heritage Day. Columbus Day is a celebration of Columbus, and the story we’re told was that, you know, Columbus was an explorer, you know, a really intrepid person who really went on an adventure, and that’s supposed to be inspiring to us. But unfortunately, that is based on a lie. That idea of Columbus as an explorer is based on a lie. Columbus did not discover America. He plundered it, and he brutalized its people. And so, I would think that people, in general, whether they’re Italian or indigenous or any ethnicity, would want to align themselves with people who have stood for social justice, not somebody who represents a symbol of massacre and plunder. And I think that most Italian Americans that we’ve heard from, you know, through phone, from City Council and people that I run into, most of the people who are from the Italian-American community have thanked us for doing this and for representing their true ideas, that they do not want to celebrate somebody who is a symbol of racism and mass murder, and it really—you know, it really is an abomination.

But let’s come together to bring about an Italian Heritage Day and make sure that we don’t let this sort of thing, this sort of idea, this mythical idea that Columbus was an explorer, divide us. We all need to come together. In fact, if we look at what’s happening around us—you were just reporting about Ferguson—everything that’s happening around us is showing us that more and more people are realizing that, in general, this system of capitalism, that rests on a history of slavery and colonialism and continues the exploitation and war and violence to this day, is not working for us. We need an alternative. There’s never been a better time for us to be united and fight for socialism, fight against corporate domination.

AMYGOODMAN: Historian and activist Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has written an open letter to President Obama asking him to change Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day. She ends the letter with this call to action: quote, "It’s time for the United States government to make a gesture toward acknowledgement of its colonial past and a commitment to decolonization. Doing away with the celebration of Columbus, the very face of European colonialism, could be that gesture. In its place proclaim that fateful date of the onset of colonialism as a Day of Solidarity and Mourning with the Indigenous Peoples." Can you comment on this and whether President Obama has responded?

KSHAMASAWANT: I don’t know that President Obama has responded. And in fact, I would not be surprised if he did not by himself, in the sense that it will need a mass movement that supports the demand of the indigenous community to revoke Columbus Day, because any change that the indigenous community or any other marginalized community has obtained, it’s been because of our own courage, because our own dedication for our willingness to step up and fight back. And the resolution that we have passed in Seattle, I see that as a part of that nationwide process to bring about justice to the indigenous community, not only in the form of a symbolic reparation, but actual changes. We want this resolution to be a building block to start a conversation, a real debate about why is it that we see such poverty, unemployment and such brutalization of our indigenous communities even today.

And I think that this conversation is much broader than it might appear on the surface. I mean, we are just coming back, Amy, you and I; we were at the People’s Climate March on September 21st. The question of climate change, the question of resource sustainability and who owns the resources and who gets to pay the price for the plunder of our natural resources, that issue is global, but it’s also connected to the fate of the indigenous communities. And they are some of the most—they have been some of the most courageous fighters against the Keystone XL pipeline, here in Washington against a Cherry Point coal terminal. So they are engaged in a fight against poverty, against marginalization. They’re also engaged in a fight against corporate domination, against the domination of Big Oil and Big Coal. And all over South America, all over the Amazon, we see indigenous activists courageously fighting back. Sometimes, you know, they have to pay with their life.

So I think we have to—now, our task on the left is to join these movements together, give a much more amplified voice to the struggles of the indigenous communities, by realizing that their struggle is connected to the black struggle in Ferguson, is connected to the struggle of women against sexism and sexual violence, is connected to the struggle of workers overall for workplace justice, and build a larger—a larger team of movements, an explosive era of social movements.

AMYGOODMAN: It’s interesting, an interesting connection you have to this issue. You come from India, Kshama Sawant. Christopher Columbus thought he was in India, which is why we call Native Americans Indians, is that right? Can you talk about that history?

KSHAMASAWANT: That’s correct. Columbus was headed on a route to India. And again, the reason that they were headed to India is also very much connected to the need for a vast base of cheap, or preferably free, natural resources, free labor and extensive markets. I mean, this whole process of colonization, through which the Americas were colonized, through which my own continent in South Asia was colonized, Africa and South America experienced conquest, all of this process was not incidental. It was not because there were a few wantonly cruel people in that century. It happened because the early development of capitalism required those resources. It required to expend itself in that way. And capitalism in the early days also required slavery. It required these open markets. It required to establish monoculture, and that implied that they had to militarily control the land that they ended up occupying. In that way, India has had a similar history to the Americas, because we were also colonized by the Europeans and ultimately by a really well-established British Empire. And Indian people had to build strong movements—many of those movements were led by socialists—to gain independence.

But what we see right now, you know, in all of these continents, these neocolonial countries, we see that cycle of plunder and exploitation being repeated over and over again. You see this pattern going on over and over again. And I think the question we have to ask is: How long are we going to accept this, you know, inevitability in a system that will go on generating this cycle of poverty and exploitation and war, where more and more marginalized communities are going to be paying the price? So, I think this raises the larger question of systemic change that we need to talk about.

]]>
Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 -0400Meet the Navajo Activist Who Got the Washington Redskins' Trademark Revoked: Amanda Blackhorsehttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/19/meet_the_navajo_activist_who_got
tag:democracynow.org,2014-06-19:en/story/4b6b62 JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The growing movement to change the name of the Washington Redskins football team has scored a surprising victory. On Wednesday, a federal agency canceled the team&#8217;s trademark registration after concluding its name and logo are disparaging to Native Americans. The decision, issued by an arm of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, does not force the team to change its name but could make it more difficult to legally guard the name and logo from use by third parties.
AMY GOODMAN : The team can reportedly keep the trademark while they appeal, but Native Americans and other critics of the Redskins&#8217; brand have hailed the ruling as the latest sign team owner Dan Snyder will inevitably be forced to drop it. Among those celebrating Wednesday&#8217;s ruling were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and, before him, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.
SEN . MARIA CANTWELL : Madam President, I come to the floor because the Patent Office has just ruled that the name of the Washington football team is not patentable because it is a slur. So we&#8217;re so excited to know that finally people are recognizing that this issue can no longer be a business case for the NFL to use this patent.
MAJORITY LEADER HARRY REID : This is extremely important to Native Americans all over the country that they no longer use this name. It&#8217;s racist. Daniel Snyder says it&#8217;s about tradition. I ask, what tradition? A tradition of racism is all that that name leaves in its wake. The writing is on the wall. It&#8217;s on the wall in giant, blinking neon lights.
AMY GOODMAN : Senators Reid and Cantwell were among the more than 50 senators who signed a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell last month urging him to push the Redskins to change their name.
The legal case that triumphed Wednesday was filed in 2006 by a group of young Native Americans after a similar case was overturned on appeal. In that earlier case, a federal court found the plaintiffs had waited too long to file their case. Well, one of the plaintiffs in the latest case joins us now. Amanda Blackhorse is a social worker and member of the Navajo Nation, who joins us from Kayenta, Arizona, which is in the Navajo Nation. And sportswriter Dave Zirin joins us from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where he&#8217;s covering the World Cup.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! But let&#8217;s begin with Amanda Blackhorse. Talk about the significance of this patent case.
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : Good morning, and thank you for having me.
The significance, I mean, this is such a huge victory not only for, you know, our group, but for Native Americans all over the nation, and as well as, you know, our supporters. We have a tremendous amount of supporters who are non-Native, as well, and this is just a huge victory for us. I think—you know, I know that the cancellation of the trademark does not mean that the team has to change their name. I think our biggest thing with this is that, you know, their name, the &quot;R&quot; word, does not deserve federal protection. And we would like to make that known to the team. And also, you know, we don&#8217;t think that Dan Snyder and the co-owners should make money off of a racial slur, especially a racial slur directed at Native American people. And so, this is a huge victory for us. I do know that, you know, the team is going to appeal, and we are ready for that. You know, we&#8217;ve been through this process for eight years now. We will continue to fight. And, you know, this is not the end for us.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Amanda Blackhorse, an attorney for the Redskins released a statement in response to the decision, saying, quote, &quot;We&#8217;ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today&#8217;s ruling will have no effect at all on the team&#8217;s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo. We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board&#8217;s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.&quot; Now, the reference there was that there had been a prior case, as we mentioned in the lead-in to this story. Could you talk about that prior case and what happened there? Because most sports fans are surprised by the ruling, but this has been a long process of litigation on this issue.
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : Absolutely. Suzan Harjo, who is sort of the person who has been pushing this for all these years, she filed her case, along with other petitioners, in 1992. They won their case under the TTAB in 1999. Pro Football came back and appealed that case, and they won based on laches, stating that, you know, like Amy said, the petitioners waited too long to file their case, and so—or they were too old at the time that they filed their case. So, in our case, we—
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Too old? Too old? What do they mean by that?
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : What was that?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Too old? What do they mean by that?
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : That they should have filed at the—when they became adults, that they waited too long to file their case. So, with our case, you know, each of us were between the ages of 18 and 24. So, if they appeal, we are not barred by laches, so they cannot say that we waited too long. We were—we had just become adults at that time. So that&#8217;s kind of the big difference for us in our case.
AMY GOODMAN : Amanda, the case bears your name; it&#8217;s Blackhorse v. Pro Football . Why does the name of the Redskins team in Washington, D.C., affect you, bother you, hurt you so much?
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : Well, first and foremost, the name is a textbook definition—it&#8217;s a—the textbook definition of the word is a racial slur, and it&#8217;s a disparaging name towards Native American people. And, you know, in my community, we don&#8217;t call each other by the &quot;R&quot; word. I have never heard another Native American person call another Native American person by the &quot;R&quot; word. It&#8217;s just not something that we do. We have other names, like Native American, American Indian, or even Indian, but we never call each other by the &quot;R&quot; word.
And so, you know, the name itself actually dates back, you know, at the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people. And so, you know, one could make a great living off of just killing Native American people. And there was a tier effect that was paid out. You know, the highest paid was for a Native American man and then a woman and then a child. And so, based off of that, there were news clippings and flyers and stuff that were posted up, asking people to go out to kill Indians and bring back the red skin. So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin. And so, that&#8217;s where the &quot;Redskin&quot; word has been kind of passed down. So, in our community, we do not use that word.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I&#8217;d like to bring in Dave Zirin, the writer and sports analyst. The Redskins and their owner, Dan Snyder, have really battled this, and he continues to insist that he will not change the name. Could you talk about Snyder and his role within the National Football League hierarchy of owners?
DAVE ZIRIN : Oh, absolutely. I mean, Dan Snyder has a kind of dual position in the hierarchy of NFL owners in that he is not someone with a lot of friends among NFL ownership, precisely because his personality is so abrasive. And frankly, his abrasive personality, the fact that he&#8217;s everything short of somebody twirling his mustache as he insists that the name will never change, his belligerence is one of the things that I think has fueled the movement to actually change the Washington football team name.
Yet at the same time, the Washington football team brand is one of the most powerful in all of the NFL . And that&#8217;s what&#8217;s so important about this case that we have to remember, is that 31 of the 32 NFL teams, every team except the Dallas Cowboys, they pool their merchandise money and then divide them equally. And the Washington football team is responsible for a very big slice of that pie. So if the trademark is removed and all of a sudden the market is flooded with bootleg gear, that actually cuts into the profits of other NFL owners and creates a new arena of pressure on Dan Snyder to change this name, beyond indigenous activists, beyond senators, beyond sportswriters who refuse to use the name. But it creates an avenue of other owners who are now saying, &quot;Wait a minute, we don&#8217;t really care about racism or not racism; what we do care about is the color green. So it&#8217;s not Redskins, but greenbacks. And the greenbacks in our wallet are hurting right now, so, Dan Snyder, you need to get on it and change the name.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Amanda Blackhorse, if you can talk about what you think reporters should do? Yesterday, William Rhoden was on television, New York Times reporter, saying that reporters should also just refer to, quote, &quot;the team&quot; and not use that word.
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : I think that&#8217;s also very important, our language that we use. I&#8217;ve used the term, you know, to describe what I&#8217;m talking about, but I don&#8217;t freely use the word in a day-to-day basis. You know, if I want to let someone know what exactly I&#8217;m talking about, then I will use it. But I do appreciate the press, you know, who have decided to not print the word anymore because it is a racial slur. There are people who are making complaints to the FCC , as well, when they do hear the word on air.
And so, I think it&#8217;s very important that we start moving towards that—in that direction, because I think that we live in a culture now where we are so desensitized to some of these things that we don&#8217;t even think about it without—you know, when we&#8217;re saying a racial slur, and that we won&#8217;t—we need to—you know, that&#8217;s kind of one of the things that we&#8217;ve been doing, is educating people on the term, because people think it&#8217;s just, you know, a red—describing a group of people, and they don&#8217;t understand the history behind the word. But you wouldn&#8217;t call someone by their color. You know, you don&#8217;t call people whiteskin or yellowskin or blackskin or brownskin. It&#8217;s just not something that is socially acceptable. So why is it OK for this to happen?
AMY GOODMAN : How do you feel about the other names of the teams—the Seminoles, the Braves, the Indians, the Blackhawks—and, you know, it goes on—the Indians?
AMANDA BLACKHORSE : Oh, yes. I think the Indians, the Cleveland Indians, their name—or their logo is one of the most racist logos I have ever seen. That is not the way Native American people look, and that is definitely not the way our Native American men look. It is very offensive, and it needs to go. And I think the team understands that at this point, that it is offensive, because they won&#8217;t print—you know, they won&#8217;t use that logo when they&#8217;re in Arizona or, you know, in certain places. So I think they&#8217;re kind of moving in that direction.
But other teams—you know, the Braves, the Chiefs, the Blackhawks—you know, someone explained this to me one time. A mascot is meant to be ridiculed. A mascot is there so people can push it around. It can be brave, it can be stoic, but it could also be something that you can put down. And so, when you put a Native American image in that position, then you&#8217;re opening up for a whole slew of, you know, different stereotypes to be directed at Native American people.
And so, I think what people don&#8217;t understand is what happens at these games. You know, you go into a game, and you see just—you know, it&#8217;s horrible. You know, you see people wearing a red face. You see people wearing fake feathers in their hair, mocking the headdress. You see people with war paint, doing the tomahawk chop and, you know, saying, &quot;Scalp him.&quot; It&#8217;s very offensive. And I think when you have a Native American mascot for a team, you know, you have no control over what happens in that stadium. There&#8217;s a lot of things that are very negative towards Native American people that happen in that stadium. So I just don&#8217;t agree that we should have Native American mascots. It&#8217;s too—there&#8217;s a fine line there, and you can&#8217;t separate the two.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I&#8217;d like to ask Dave Zirin, Dave, do you see any parallels or lessons from the way the NBA handled the recent scandal over the L.A. Clippers and their owner versus how the NFL is handling Snyder&#8217;s battle?
DAVE ZIRIN : Well, not only are there parallels, I thought the NBA actually performed a shot across the bow, if you will, at the NFL by airing a commercial against the Washington team name, that incredibly powerful commercial that was funded by an indigenous tribe from the West Coast that spoke about, you know, &quot;There are many things that we call ourselves; this is not one of them,&quot; and then they showed the helmet—the NBA actually trying to draw a sharp contrast with the NFL in terms of how they deal with racial issues.
And frankly, that&#8217;s what people were saying on social media as soon as Donald Sterling was given the boot. It&#8217;s like, why is this racism OK, and this racism not OK? And when you peeled that back, that&#8217;s where this gets really ugly, because why do we allow a slur against Native Americans, but we don&#8217;t allow slurs against other ethnicities? And it&#8217;s rooted in the realities of genocide and displacement. And if you need genocide or displacement to have a team name, then you probably need a new team name.
I mean, I was here in—I&#8217;m here in Brazil. And when we heard the news about the Washington trademark team, I was hanging out with some indigenous organizers, and they were high-fiving me, and they were very excited, not because they care about the NFL at all, but because just the fight is always, for indigenous people, for visibility, to be seen, to be noticed. And that&#8217;s the same in Brazil as in the United States, as throughout Latin America. That&#8217;s always the challenge, is just to say, &quot;Hey, we are here. We are a living people, and we demand our rights.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Dave, we have to break, but we want you to stay with us, because we want to talk about the World Cup. Amanda Blackhorse in Kayenta, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, thank you so much for being with us. Of course, we&#8217;ll continue to follow this story. The case, of course, is Blackhorse v. Pro Football . Thanks, Amanda. This is Democracy Now! We&#8217;ll be back with Dave Zirin in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at the World Cup in a moment. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The growing movement to change the name of the Washington Redskins football team has scored a surprising victory. On Wednesday, a federal agency canceled the team’s trademark registration after concluding its name and logo are disparaging to Native Americans. The decision, issued by an arm of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, does not force the team to change its name but could make it more difficult to legally guard the name and logo from use by third parties.

AMYGOODMAN: The team can reportedly keep the trademark while they appeal, but Native Americans and other critics of the Redskins’ brand have hailed the ruling as the latest sign team owner Dan Snyder will inevitably be forced to drop it. Among those celebrating Wednesday’s ruling were Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and, before him, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington.

SEN. MARIACANTWELL: Madam President, I come to the floor because the Patent Office has just ruled that the name of the Washington football team is not patentable because it is a slur. So we’re so excited to know that finally people are recognizing that this issue can no longer be a business case for the NFL to use this patent.

MAJORITYLEADERHARRYREID: This is extremely important to Native Americans all over the country that they no longer use this name. It’s racist. Daniel Snyder says it’s about tradition. I ask, what tradition? A tradition of racism is all that that name leaves in its wake. The writing is on the wall. It’s on the wall in giant, blinking neon lights.

AMYGOODMAN: Senators Reid and Cantwell were among the more than 50 senators who signed a letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell last month urging him to push the Redskins to change their name.

The legal case that triumphed Wednesday was filed in 2006 by a group of young Native Americans after a similar case was overturned on appeal. In that earlier case, a federal court found the plaintiffs had waited too long to file their case. Well, one of the plaintiffs in the latest case joins us now. Amanda Blackhorse is a social worker and member of the Navajo Nation, who joins us from Kayenta, Arizona, which is in the Navajo Nation. And sportswriter Dave Zirin joins us from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, where he’s covering the World Cup.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! But let’s begin with Amanda Blackhorse. Talk about the significance of this patent case.

AMANDABLACKHORSE: Good morning, and thank you for having me.

The significance, I mean, this is such a huge victory not only for, you know, our group, but for Native Americans all over the nation, and as well as, you know, our supporters. We have a tremendous amount of supporters who are non-Native, as well, and this is just a huge victory for us. I think—you know, I know that the cancellation of the trademark does not mean that the team has to change their name. I think our biggest thing with this is that, you know, their name, the "R" word, does not deserve federal protection. And we would like to make that known to the team. And also, you know, we don’t think that Dan Snyder and the co-owners should make money off of a racial slur, especially a racial slur directed at Native American people. And so, this is a huge victory for us. I do know that, you know, the team is going to appeal, and we are ready for that. You know, we’ve been through this process for eight years now. We will continue to fight. And, you know, this is not the end for us.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Amanda Blackhorse, an attorney for the Redskins released a statement in response to the decision, saying, quote, "We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo. We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal." Now, the reference there was that there had been a prior case, as we mentioned in the lead-in to this story. Could you talk about that prior case and what happened there? Because most sports fans are surprised by the ruling, but this has been a long process of litigation on this issue.

AMANDABLACKHORSE: Absolutely. Suzan Harjo, who is sort of the person who has been pushing this for all these years, she filed her case, along with other petitioners, in 1992. They won their case under the TTAB in 1999. Pro Football came back and appealed that case, and they won based on laches, stating that, you know, like Amy said, the petitioners waited too long to file their case, and so—or they were too old at the time that they filed their case. So, in our case, we—

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Too old? Too old? What do they mean by that?

AMANDABLACKHORSE: What was that?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Too old? What do they mean by that?

AMANDABLACKHORSE: That they should have filed at the—when they became adults, that they waited too long to file their case. So, with our case, you know, each of us were between the ages of 18 and 24. So, if they appeal, we are not barred by laches, so they cannot say that we waited too long. We were—we had just become adults at that time. So that’s kind of the big difference for us in our case.

AMYGOODMAN: Amanda, the case bears your name; it’s Blackhorse v. Pro Football. Why does the name of the Redskins team in Washington, D.C., affect you, bother you, hurt you so much?

AMANDABLACKHORSE: Well, first and foremost, the name is a textbook definition—it’s a—the textbook definition of the word is a racial slur, and it’s a disparaging name towards Native American people. And, you know, in my community, we don’t call each other by the "R" word. I have never heard another Native American person call another Native American person by the "R" word. It’s just not something that we do. We have other names, like Native American, American Indian, or even Indian, but we never call each other by the "R" word.

And so, you know, the name itself actually dates back, you know, at the time when the Native American population was being exterminated, and bounty hunters were hired to kill Native American people. And so, you know, one could make a great living off of just killing Native American people. And there was a tier effect that was paid out. You know, the highest paid was for a Native American man and then a woman and then a child. And so, based off of that, there were news clippings and flyers and stuff that were posted up, asking people to go out to kill Indians and bring back the red skin. So, in order to show that they made their kill, they had to bring back a scalp or their skin. And so, that’s where the "Redskin" word has been kind of passed down. So, in our community, we do not use that word.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to bring in Dave Zirin, the writer and sports analyst. The Redskins and their owner, Dan Snyder, have really battled this, and he continues to insist that he will not change the name. Could you talk about Snyder and his role within the National Football League hierarchy of owners?

DAVEZIRIN: Oh, absolutely. I mean, Dan Snyder has a kind of dual position in the hierarchy of NFL owners in that he is not someone with a lot of friends among NFL ownership, precisely because his personality is so abrasive. And frankly, his abrasive personality, the fact that he’s everything short of somebody twirling his mustache as he insists that the name will never change, his belligerence is one of the things that I think has fueled the movement to actually change the Washington football team name.

Yet at the same time, the Washington football team brand is one of the most powerful in all of the NFL. And that’s what’s so important about this case that we have to remember, is that 31 of the 32 NFL teams, every team except the Dallas Cowboys, they pool their merchandise money and then divide them equally. And the Washington football team is responsible for a very big slice of that pie. So if the trademark is removed and all of a sudden the market is flooded with bootleg gear, that actually cuts into the profits of other NFL owners and creates a new arena of pressure on Dan Snyder to change this name, beyond indigenous activists, beyond senators, beyond sportswriters who refuse to use the name. But it creates an avenue of other owners who are now saying, "Wait a minute, we don’t really care about racism or not racism; what we do care about is the color green. So it’s not Redskins, but greenbacks. And the greenbacks in our wallet are hurting right now, so, Dan Snyder, you need to get on it and change the name."

AMYGOODMAN: Amanda Blackhorse, if you can talk about what you think reporters should do? Yesterday, William Rhoden was on television, New York Times reporter, saying that reporters should also just refer to, quote, "the team" and not use that word.

AMANDABLACKHORSE: I think that’s also very important, our language that we use. I’ve used the term, you know, to describe what I’m talking about, but I don’t freely use the word in a day-to-day basis. You know, if I want to let someone know what exactly I’m talking about, then I will use it. But I do appreciate the press, you know, who have decided to not print the word anymore because it is a racial slur. There are people who are making complaints to the FCC, as well, when they do hear the word on air.

And so, I think it’s very important that we start moving towards that—in that direction, because I think that we live in a culture now where we are so desensitized to some of these things that we don’t even think about it without—you know, when we’re saying a racial slur, and that we won’t—we need to—you know, that’s kind of one of the things that we’ve been doing, is educating people on the term, because people think it’s just, you know, a red—describing a group of people, and they don’t understand the history behind the word. But you wouldn’t call someone by their color. You know, you don’t call people whiteskin or yellowskin or blackskin or brownskin. It’s just not something that is socially acceptable. So why is it OK for this to happen?

AMYGOODMAN: How do you feel about the other names of the teams—the Seminoles, the Braves, the Indians, the Blackhawks—and, you know, it goes on—the Indians?

AMANDABLACKHORSE: Oh, yes. I think the Indians, the Cleveland Indians, their name—or their logo is one of the most racist logos I have ever seen. That is not the way Native American people look, and that is definitely not the way our Native American men look. It is very offensive, and it needs to go. And I think the team understands that at this point, that it is offensive, because they won’t print—you know, they won’t use that logo when they’re in Arizona or, you know, in certain places. So I think they’re kind of moving in that direction.

But other teams—you know, the Braves, the Chiefs, the Blackhawks—you know, someone explained this to me one time. A mascot is meant to be ridiculed. A mascot is there so people can push it around. It can be brave, it can be stoic, but it could also be something that you can put down. And so, when you put a Native American image in that position, then you’re opening up for a whole slew of, you know, different stereotypes to be directed at Native American people.

And so, I think what people don’t understand is what happens at these games. You know, you go into a game, and you see just—you know, it’s horrible. You know, you see people wearing a red face. You see people wearing fake feathers in their hair, mocking the headdress. You see people with war paint, doing the tomahawk chop and, you know, saying, "Scalp him." It’s very offensive. And I think when you have a Native American mascot for a team, you know, you have no control over what happens in that stadium. There’s a lot of things that are very negative towards Native American people that happen in that stadium. So I just don’t agree that we should have Native American mascots. It’s too—there’s a fine line there, and you can’t separate the two.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to ask Dave Zirin, Dave, do you see any parallels or lessons from the way the NBA handled the recent scandal over the L.A. Clippers and their owner versus how the NFL is handling Snyder’s battle?

DAVEZIRIN: Well, not only are there parallels, I thought the NBA actually performed a shot across the bow, if you will, at the NFL by airing a commercial against the Washington team name, that incredibly powerful commercial that was funded by an indigenous tribe from the West Coast that spoke about, you know, "There are many things that we call ourselves; this is not one of them," and then they showed the helmet—the NBA actually trying to draw a sharp contrast with the NFL in terms of how they deal with racial issues.

And frankly, that’s what people were saying on social media as soon as Donald Sterling was given the boot. It’s like, why is this racism OK, and this racism not OK? And when you peeled that back, that’s where this gets really ugly, because why do we allow a slur against Native Americans, but we don’t allow slurs against other ethnicities? And it’s rooted in the realities of genocide and displacement. And if you need genocide or displacement to have a team name, then you probably need a new team name.

I mean, I was here in—I’m here in Brazil. And when we heard the news about the Washington trademark team, I was hanging out with some indigenous organizers, and they were high-fiving me, and they were very excited, not because they care about the NFL at all, but because just the fight is always, for indigenous people, for visibility, to be seen, to be noticed. And that’s the same in Brazil as in the United States, as throughout Latin America. That’s always the challenge, is just to say, "Hey, we are here. We are a living people, and we demand our rights."

AMYGOODMAN: Dave, we have to break, but we want you to stay with us, because we want to talk about the World Cup. Amanda Blackhorse in Kayenta, Arizona, on the Navajo Nation, thank you so much for being with us. Of course, we’ll continue to follow this story. The case, of course, is Blackhorse v. Pro Football. Thanks, Amanda. This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back with Dave Zirin in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, at the World Cup in a moment.

]]>
Thu, 19 Jun 2014 00:00:00 -0400Extended Interview with The Yes Men on "Operation Second Thanks"http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/5/2/extended_interview_with_the_yes_men
tag:democracynow.org,2014-05-02:blog/a40eb3 Watch our extended web-only interview with The Yes Men and indigenous activist Gitz Crazyboy. Earlier this week, members of the group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called &quot;American Renewable Clean-Energy Network&quot; to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. After the announcement, The Yes Men and indigenous activists led the audience in a large circle dance to celebrate the fictitious plan. Click here to watch Part 1 of this interview featuring exclusive video of The Yes Men&#8217;s latest action.
AMY GOODMAN : I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, yes, The Yes Men have struck again. Earlier this week, members of the activist group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called American Renewable Clean-Energy Network to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. This is a member of The Yes Men who identified himself as Benedict Waterman, undersecretary of policy implementation at the U.S. Department of Energy.
BENEDICT WATERMAN : Thank you very much. It&#8217;s a great pleasure to be here and an honor to be making this announcement here. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I&#8217;m very excited to announce today a great new plan. It&#8217;s beginning a process that will do nothing less than convert the United States&#8217; energy grid into one that&#8217;s powered entirely by renewable sources. We&#8217;re going to do it in only slightly more time than it took to win World War II.
American Renewable Clean-Energy Network, AmeriCAN, is part of President Obama&#8217;s Climate Change Action Plan. It will put ownership of energy production directly in the hands of small companies, local entities and entrepreneurs like yourselves. The U.S. currently generates around 10 percent of our energy from renewable sources, placing us 113th in the world. By 2030, America will produce 100 percent of our energy from renewables, establishing us once again as a beacon of innovation and progress and as a global leader in confronting the supreme challenge of climate change.
BANA SLOWHORSE : There&#8217;s always this thing of like, well, how long will it last? Everybody asks that: How long will it last? How long will this green movement go on for? How long will mankind use and utilize this energy? And I think about that and the sentiments of our ancestors that signed the treaties. I&#8217;ll echo their words: As long as the sun shines, the river flows, the grass grows, the wind blows, we will have energy, and we will have these jobs.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Gitz Crazyboy posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Homeland Security Congress. He&#8217;s actually an indigenous tar sands activist. After The Yes Men spoke, they led the crowd in a line dance.
DRUM CHIEF FOUR FEATHERS : [echoed by line dance] We are home. We are here. Said, we are ho-ho-home. We are here-here-here. We are here. The sun gonna shine. The wind gonna blow. That&#8217;s all we need. To continue to grow.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, to find out more, we&#8217;re joined right now by three guests. Gitz Crazyboy, who we just heard from him in the tape posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, actually an indigenous tar sands activist. Andy Bichlbaum is with us, of The Yes Men. He posed as Benedict Waterman, an undersecretary of policy implementation at U.S. Department of Energy. And Mike Bonanno, member of The Yes Men, played the assistant to Benedict Waterman. This congress, the Homeland Security Congress, what is it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : This is a Congress that is about contractors who want to get government contracts to do usually things like fortify the border or, you know, other homeland security issues. They pay a lot of money to go, and we got in and gave an announcement that the U.S. was going to convert to entirely renewable energy by 2030. This was the Department of Energy—I was from the Department of Energy, and I announced the sweeping plan, teaming up with the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to convert the entire U.S. to renewable energy by 2030, which is entirely feasible. And everybody was thrilled.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They—yeah, believe it or not, they believed me. This—this didn&#8217;t dissuade them.
AMY GOODMAN : The congress—this National Homeland Security Congress has lobbyists, military contractors, and they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Absolutely believed.
AMY GOODMAN : And they danced with you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And they danced with us.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : In celebration, they danced.
AMY GOODMAN : Why do military contractors come?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Who knows?
MIKE BONANNO : It&#8217;s because they think—
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contracts, I think.
MIKE BONANNO : Yeah, they think they&#8217;re going to get business.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contract—yeah, they go to these conferences because there are government officials who go. There are also—it&#8217;s a forum to promote what they do. But I think what it shows, this—the fact that we could get all these people that we think of as being from the dark side—and they are from the dark side—we could get all these people to dance in support of renewable energy, is that there are very few people who actually want the planet to be doomed. There are very few people who want us to continue on this fossil fuel path that&#8217;s leading us to doom. Even defense contractors, even Homeland Security contractors, everybody will follow. The only problem is that we have to lead. And we have to force our leaders to actually do what we need them to do, and then people will follow—except for a few oil company execs.
AMY GOODMAN : I was going to say, what&#8217;s your next step here? Well, you talked about Keystone XL.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yep.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Briefly. Keystone XL is important, I think, especially like turning a page in America&#8217;s history. You have this amazing resistance, the CIA , the new CIA , Cowboy and Indian Alliance, that are adamantly rejecting the TransCanada pipeline that&#8217;s coming through. It&#8217;s interesting to talk about the pipeline, because the State Department has released that there&#8217;s only going to be 35 permanent jobs out of this. People are saying it&#8217;s pushing thousands of jobs, but in the end, 35 permanent jobs. They&#8217;re pulling out of their responsibility to protect and maintain the pipe. People don&#8217;t know about synthetic crude oil, which is thick, and they have to mix it with other chemicals. These expediate the process of the pipes being eaten away. So we have no idea—like, a 50-year pipe with synthetic crude oil pumping through it won&#8217;t last 50 years; it&#8217;ll last less, depending on the volume and how the mixture is. That&#8217;s the CIA alliance here in America&#8217;s Heartland. There&#8217;s also the resistance pockets we&#8217;re seeing in—up with the Enbridge pipeline, with the Unist&#8217;ot&#8217;en, the Wet&#8217;suwet&#8217;en Freedom Camp.
AMY GOODMAN : Which is where?
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Northern BC. It&#8217;s right in the middle of the pipeline [inaudible].
AMY GOODMAN : British Columbia.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : British Columbia. And then on the East Coast, you have the Elsipogtog, and there are people who are adamant against fracking. These are the resistance pockets we are seeing that are continuously building every single day, and they&#8217;re adamant about this not going through.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you put this in the context of previous actions The Yes Men have done, for those who don&#8217;t know what you do?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Well, yes. Go ahead.
MIKE BONANNO : I mean, this fits within the continuum of things we&#8217;ve done, where we have impersonated government officials or, you know, government or industry bigwigs, infiltrated their conferences, and on their turf said something that either was dark satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, like A Modest Proposal , or simply engage the utopian dream. So we would announce, for example, on live television that Dow Chemical was finally going to clean up the mess in Bhopal and compensate the victims, which they haven&#8217;t done even 30 years on from the largest industrial accident in history. And by doing that, it creates this moment of confusion, where people ask, &quot;Why don&#8217;t they do that? Why don&#8217;t we simply do the right thing?&quot; Because there&#8217;s nobody out there who thinks that the people in Bhopal should keep suffering, who thinks that the toxic waste that they left on that site should keep poisoning people for generations. Everybody knows it&#8217;s the right thing to do, so why don&#8217;t we do it? And this is one of those cases. Converting to renewable energy now is the right thing to do. It&#8217;s the only thing to do. And so, why aren&#8217;t we doing it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And everybody knows it. As soon as you mention it, everybody understands. &quot;Oh, obviously we should,&quot; and they do a circle dance with you. And there are lots of credible plans for converting to renewable energy. You just have to look for them. There&#8217;s one, The Solutions Project, that has solutions for every single state in the union, how to convert to convertable energy and what that would mean. There are many projects—there&#8217;s one out of Stanford—that show the benefits of this. And it&#8217;s not just in reducing the risk of climate change, which is big enough; it&#8217;s also going to save $500 billion in healthcare costs, which are due to air pollution. Fifty-nine thousand people die every year from air pollution in the U.S. That&#8217;s expensive, besides being terrible.
MIKE BONANNO : And if we don&#8217;t do it, we&#8217;re going to end up with places that look like where Gitz is from. I mean, Gitz comes from the tar sands. We went and looked at the places where his people have lived for thousands of years, and it is a big black hole in the ground. It is incredible. It&#8217;s disturbing. It&#8217;s frightening.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Well, it&#8217;s really turning a biodiverse boreal forest into a toxic wasteland. I mean, these problems are going to be there for generations to come. Like monitoring the waste that&#8217;s there from the tailings ponds from the excess, like, crap that comes out of the tar sands, minimum 150 years. It&#8217;s going to be half—it&#8217;s just going to be monitored to see what happens after that. So, literally, we&#8217;re digging these things, these gigantic tailings pond wastes, that can be seen from space. We&#8217;re destroying all the biodiversity in the area. We&#8217;re poisoning the Athabasca watershed. And all these poisons are going north. We&#8217;re seeing sicknesses that are killing people within the communities, rare cancer clusters we&#8217;ve never had. We&#8217;re seeing species of fish being deformed, tumors within animals that walk, mass amounts of birds dying every single year from landing on the tailings ponds. But not only birds landing on the tailings ponds, animals swimming through, because it looks like a river. It looks like a lake. And once they step in there, they have to be euthanized. This is the largest, most destructive industry on the face of this planet. And it&#8217;s enjoying every single day.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And that&#8217;s what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about. It&#8217;s getting oil from there to the Gulf to be shipped for export to make these companies even wealthier. And the good news is that indigenous activists in Canada have stopped already—have stalled, at least, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is about the same thing, getting the oil to the Pacific Coast. It&#8217;s completely stalled, largely, I think, because of indigenous activism.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : But not only that, I mean, there&#8217;s a lot of non-natives, as well.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yeah.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : I mean, there&#8217;s the town of Kitimat, which is a resource-based town, like fishing, lumber, all of that. It&#8217;s a resource-based town. They voted against having this pipeline coming through, because they see it as too much of an environmental risk.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, The Yes Men, folks. And now you&#8217;ve heard their latest action, and you heard it here on Democracy Now!
Watch our extended web-only interview with The Yes Men and indigenous activist Gitz Crazyboy. Earlier this week, members of the group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called "American Renewable Clean-Energy Network" to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. After the announcement, The Yes Men and indigenous activists led the audience in a large circle dance to celebrate the fictitious plan. Click here to watch Part 1 of this interview featuring exclusive video of The Yes Men’s latest action.

AMYGOODMAN: I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, yes, The Yes Men have struck again. Earlier this week, members of the activist group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called American Renewable Clean-Energy Network to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. This is a member of The Yes Men who identified himself as Benedict Waterman, undersecretary of policy implementation at the U.S. Department of Energy.

BENEDICTWATERMAN: Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to be here and an honor to be making this announcement here. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I’m very excited to announce today a great new plan. It’s beginning a process that will do nothing less than convert the United States’ energy grid into one that’s powered entirely by renewable sources. We’re going to do it in only slightly more time than it took to win World War II.

American Renewable Clean-Energy Network, AmeriCAN, is part of President Obama’s Climate Change Action Plan. It will put ownership of energy production directly in the hands of small companies, local entities and entrepreneurs like yourselves. The U.S. currently generates around 10 percent of our energy from renewable sources, placing us 113th in the world. By 2030, America will produce 100 percent of our energy from renewables, establishing us once again as a beacon of innovation and progress and as a global leader in confronting the supreme challenge of climate change.

BANASLOWHORSE: There’s always this thing of like, well, how long will it last? Everybody asks that: How long will it last? How long will this green movement go on for? How long will mankind use and utilize this energy? And I think about that and the sentiments of our ancestors that signed the treaties. I’ll echo their words: As long as the sun shines, the river flows, the grass grows, the wind blows, we will have energy, and we will have these jobs.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Gitz Crazyboy posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Homeland Security Congress. He’s actually an indigenous tar sands activist. After The Yes Men spoke, they led the crowd in a line dance.

DRUMCHIEFFOURFEATHERS: [echoed by line dance] We are home. We are here. Said, we are ho-ho-home. We are here-here-here. We are here. The sun gonna shine. The wind gonna blow. That’s all we need. To continue to grow.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, to find out more, we’re joined right now by three guests. Gitz Crazyboy, who we just heard from him in the tape posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, actually an indigenous tar sands activist. Andy Bichlbaum is with us, of The Yes Men. He posed as Benedict Waterman, an undersecretary of policy implementation at U.S. Department of Energy. And Mike Bonanno, member of The Yes Men, played the assistant to Benedict Waterman. This congress, the Homeland Security Congress, what is it?

ANDYBICHLBAUM: This is a Congress that is about contractors who want to get government contracts to do usually things like fortify the border or, you know, other homeland security issues. They pay a lot of money to go, and we got in and gave an announcement that the U.S. was going to convert to entirely renewable energy by 2030. This was the Department of Energy—I was from the Department of Energy, and I announced the sweeping plan, teaming up with the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to convert the entire U.S. to renewable energy by 2030, which is entirely feasible. And everybody was thrilled.

AMYGOODMAN: The congress—this National Homeland Security Congress has lobbyists, military contractors, and they believed you.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: Absolutely believed.

AMYGOODMAN: And they danced with you.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: And they danced with us.

GITZCRAZYBOY: In celebration, they danced.

AMYGOODMAN: Why do military contractors come?

ANDYBICHLBAUM: Who knows?

MIKEBONANNO: It’s because they think—

ANDYBICHLBAUM: They want defense contracts, I think.

MIKEBONANNO: Yeah, they think they’re going to get business.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: They want defense contract—yeah, they go to these conferences because there are government officials who go. There are also—it’s a forum to promote what they do. But I think what it shows, this—the fact that we could get all these people that we think of as being from the dark side—and they are from the dark side—we could get all these people to dance in support of renewable energy, is that there are very few people who actually want the planet to be doomed. There are very few people who want us to continue on this fossil fuel path that’s leading us to doom. Even defense contractors, even Homeland Security contractors, everybody will follow. The only problem is that we have to lead. And we have to force our leaders to actually do what we need them to do, and then people will follow—except for a few oil company execs.

AMYGOODMAN: I was going to say, what’s your next step here? Well, you talked about Keystone XL.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: Yep.

GITZCRAZYBOY: Briefly. Keystone XL is important, I think, especially like turning a page in America’s history. You have this amazing resistance, the CIA, the new CIA, Cowboy and Indian Alliance, that are adamantly rejecting the TransCanada pipeline that’s coming through. It’s interesting to talk about the pipeline, because the State Department has released that there’s only going to be 35 permanent jobs out of this. People are saying it’s pushing thousands of jobs, but in the end, 35 permanent jobs. They’re pulling out of their responsibility to protect and maintain the pipe. People don’t know about synthetic crude oil, which is thick, and they have to mix it with other chemicals. These expediate the process of the pipes being eaten away. So we have no idea—like, a 50-year pipe with synthetic crude oil pumping through it won’t last 50 years; it’ll last less, depending on the volume and how the mixture is. That’s the CIA alliance here in America’s Heartland. There’s also the resistance pockets we’re seeing in—up with the Enbridge pipeline, with the Unist’ot’en, the Wet’suwet’en Freedom Camp.

AMYGOODMAN: Which is where?

GITZCRAZYBOY: Northern BC. It’s right in the middle of the pipeline [inaudible].

AMYGOODMAN: British Columbia.

GITZCRAZYBOY: British Columbia. And then on the East Coast, you have the Elsipogtog, and there are people who are adamant against fracking. These are the resistance pockets we are seeing that are continuously building every single day, and they’re adamant about this not going through.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you put this in the context of previous actions The Yes Men have done, for those who don’t know what you do?

ANDYBICHLBAUM: Well, yes. Go ahead.

MIKEBONANNO: I mean, this fits within the continuum of things we’ve done, where we have impersonated government officials or, you know, government or industry bigwigs, infiltrated their conferences, and on their turf said something that either was dark satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, like A Modest Proposal, or simply engage the utopian dream. So we would announce, for example, on live television that Dow Chemical was finally going to clean up the mess in Bhopal and compensate the victims, which they haven’t done even 30 years on from the largest industrial accident in history. And by doing that, it creates this moment of confusion, where people ask, "Why don’t they do that? Why don’t we simply do the right thing?" Because there’s nobody out there who thinks that the people in Bhopal should keep suffering, who thinks that the toxic waste that they left on that site should keep poisoning people for generations. Everybody knows it’s the right thing to do, so why don’t we do it? And this is one of those cases. Converting to renewable energy now is the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do. And so, why aren’t we doing it?

ANDYBICHLBAUM: And everybody knows it. As soon as you mention it, everybody understands. "Oh, obviously we should," and they do a circle dance with you. And there are lots of credible plans for converting to renewable energy. You just have to look for them. There’s one, The Solutions Project, that has solutions for every single state in the union, how to convert to convertable energy and what that would mean. There are many projects—there’s one out of Stanford—that show the benefits of this. And it’s not just in reducing the risk of climate change, which is big enough; it’s also going to save $500 billion in healthcare costs, which are due to air pollution. Fifty-nine thousand people die every year from air pollution in the U.S. That’s expensive, besides being terrible.

MIKEBONANNO: And if we don’t do it, we’re going to end up with places that look like where Gitz is from. I mean, Gitz comes from the tar sands. We went and looked at the places where his people have lived for thousands of years, and it is a big black hole in the ground. It is incredible. It’s disturbing. It’s frightening.

GITZCRAZYBOY: Well, it’s really turning a biodiverse boreal forest into a toxic wasteland. I mean, these problems are going to be there for generations to come. Like monitoring the waste that’s there from the tailings ponds from the excess, like, crap that comes out of the tar sands, minimum 150 years. It’s going to be half—it’s just going to be monitored to see what happens after that. So, literally, we’re digging these things, these gigantic tailings pond wastes, that can be seen from space. We’re destroying all the biodiversity in the area. We’re poisoning the Athabasca watershed. And all these poisons are going north. We’re seeing sicknesses that are killing people within the communities, rare cancer clusters we’ve never had. We’re seeing species of fish being deformed, tumors within animals that walk, mass amounts of birds dying every single year from landing on the tailings ponds. But not only birds landing on the tailings ponds, animals swimming through, because it looks like a river. It looks like a lake. And once they step in there, they have to be euthanized. This is the largest, most destructive industry on the face of this planet. And it’s enjoying every single day.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: And that’s what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about. It’s getting oil from there to the Gulf to be shipped for export to make these companies even wealthier. And the good news is that indigenous activists in Canada have stopped already—have stalled, at least, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is about the same thing, getting the oil to the Pacific Coast. It’s completely stalled, largely, I think, because of indigenous activism.

GITZCRAZYBOY: But not only that, I mean, there’s a lot of non-natives, as well.

ANDYBICHLBAUM: Yeah.

GITZCRAZYBOY: I mean, there’s the town of Kitimat, which is a resource-based town, like fishing, lumber, all of that. It’s a resource-based town. They voted against having this pipeline coming through, because they see it as too much of an environmental risk.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, The Yes Men, folks. And now you’ve heard their latest action, and you heard it here on Democracy Now!

]]>
Fri, 02 May 2014 15:39:00 -0400Extended Interview with The Yes Men on "Operation Second Thanks" Watch our extended web-only interview with The Yes Men and indigenous activist Gitz Crazyboy. Earlier this week, members of the group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called &quot;American Renewable Clean-Energy Network&quot; to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. After the announcement, The Yes Men and indigenous activists led the audience in a large circle dance to celebrate the fictitious plan. Click here to watch Part 1 of this interview featuring exclusive video of The Yes Men&#8217;s latest action.
AMY GOODMAN : I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, yes, The Yes Men have struck again. Earlier this week, members of the activist group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called American Renewable Clean-Energy Network to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. This is a member of The Yes Men who identified himself as Benedict Waterman, undersecretary of policy implementation at the U.S. Department of Energy.
BENEDICT WATERMAN : Thank you very much. It&#8217;s a great pleasure to be here and an honor to be making this announcement here. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I&#8217;m very excited to announce today a great new plan. It&#8217;s beginning a process that will do nothing less than convert the United States&#8217; energy grid into one that&#8217;s powered entirely by renewable sources. We&#8217;re going to do it in only slightly more time than it took to win World War II.
American Renewable Clean-Energy Network, AmeriCAN, is part of President Obama&#8217;s Climate Change Action Plan. It will put ownership of energy production directly in the hands of small companies, local entities and entrepreneurs like yourselves. The U.S. currently generates around 10 percent of our energy from renewable sources, placing us 113th in the world. By 2030, America will produce 100 percent of our energy from renewables, establishing us once again as a beacon of innovation and progress and as a global leader in confronting the supreme challenge of climate change.
BANA SLOWHORSE : There&#8217;s always this thing of like, well, how long will it last? Everybody asks that: How long will it last? How long will this green movement go on for? How long will mankind use and utilize this energy? And I think about that and the sentiments of our ancestors that signed the treaties. I&#8217;ll echo their words: As long as the sun shines, the river flows, the grass grows, the wind blows, we will have energy, and we will have these jobs.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Gitz Crazyboy posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Homeland Security Congress. He&#8217;s actually an indigenous tar sands activist. After The Yes Men spoke, they led the crowd in a line dance.
DRUM CHIEF FOUR FEATHERS : [echoed by line dance] We are home. We are here. Said, we are ho-ho-home. We are here-here-here. We are here. The sun gonna shine. The wind gonna blow. That&#8217;s all we need. To continue to grow.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, to find out more, we&#8217;re joined right now by three guests. Gitz Crazyboy, who we just heard from him in the tape posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, actually an indigenous tar sands activist. Andy Bichlbaum is with us, of The Yes Men. He posed as Benedict Waterman, an undersecretary of policy implementation at U.S. Department of Energy. And Mike Bonanno, member of The Yes Men, played the assistant to Benedict Waterman. This congress, the Homeland Security Congress, what is it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : This is a Congress that is about contractors who want to get government contracts to do usually things like fortify the border or, you know, other homeland security issues. They pay a lot of money to go, and we got in and gave an announcement that the U.S. was going to convert to entirely renewable energy by 2030. This was the Department of Energy—I was from the Department of Energy, and I announced the sweeping plan, teaming up with the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to convert the entire U.S. to renewable energy by 2030, which is entirely feasible. And everybody was thrilled.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They—yeah, believe it or not, they believed me. This—this didn&#8217;t dissuade them.
AMY GOODMAN : The congress—this National Homeland Security Congress has lobbyists, military contractors, and they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Absolutely believed.
AMY GOODMAN : And they danced with you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And they danced with us.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : In celebration, they danced.
AMY GOODMAN : Why do military contractors come?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Who knows?
MIKE BONANNO : It&#8217;s because they think—
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contracts, I think.
MIKE BONANNO : Yeah, they think they&#8217;re going to get business.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contract—yeah, they go to these conferences because there are government officials who go. There are also—it&#8217;s a forum to promote what they do. But I think what it shows, this—the fact that we could get all these people that we think of as being from the dark side—and they are from the dark side—we could get all these people to dance in support of renewable energy, is that there are very few people who actually want the planet to be doomed. There are very few people who want us to continue on this fossil fuel path that&#8217;s leading us to doom. Even defense contractors, even Homeland Security contractors, everybody will follow. The only problem is that we have to lead. And we have to force our leaders to actually do what we need them to do, and then people will follow—except for a few oil company execs.
AMY GOODMAN : I was going to say, what&#8217;s your next step here? Well, you talked about Keystone XL.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yep.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Briefly. Keystone XL is important, I think, especially like turning a page in America&#8217;s history. You have this amazing resistance, the CIA , the new CIA , Cowboy and Indian Alliance, that are adamantly rejecting the TransCanada pipeline that&#8217;s coming through. It&#8217;s interesting to talk about the pipeline, because the State Department has released that there&#8217;s only going to be 35 permanent jobs out of this. People are saying it&#8217;s pushing thousands of jobs, but in the end, 35 permanent jobs. They&#8217;re pulling out of their responsibility to protect and maintain the pipe. People don&#8217;t know about synthetic crude oil, which is thick, and they have to mix it with other chemicals. These expediate the process of the pipes being eaten away. So we have no idea—like, a 50-year pipe with synthetic crude oil pumping through it won&#8217;t last 50 years; it&#8217;ll last less, depending on the volume and how the mixture is. That&#8217;s the CIA alliance here in America&#8217;s Heartland. There&#8217;s also the resistance pockets we&#8217;re seeing in—up with the Enbridge pipeline, with the Unist&#8217;ot&#8217;en, the Wet&#8217;suwet&#8217;en Freedom Camp.
AMY GOODMAN : Which is where?
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Northern BC. It&#8217;s right in the middle of the pipeline [inaudible].
AMY GOODMAN : British Columbia.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : British Columbia. And then on the East Coast, you have the Elsipogtog, and there are people who are adamant against fracking. These are the resistance pockets we are seeing that are continuously building every single day, and they&#8217;re adamant about this not going through.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you put this in the context of previous actions The Yes Men have done, for those who don&#8217;t know what you do?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Well, yes. Go ahead.
MIKE BONANNO : I mean, this fits within the continuum of things we&#8217;ve done, where we have impersonated government officials or, you know, government or industry bigwigs, infiltrated their conferences, and on their turf said something that either was dark satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, like A Modest Proposal , or simply engage the utopian dream. So we would announce, for example, on live television that Dow Chemical was finally going to clean up the mess in Bhopal and compensate the victims, which they haven&#8217;t done even 30 years on from the largest industrial accident in history. And by doing that, it creates this moment of confusion, where people ask, &quot;Why don&#8217;t they do that? Why don&#8217;t we simply do the right thing?&quot; Because there&#8217;s nobody out there who thinks that the people in Bhopal should keep suffering, who thinks that the toxic waste that they left on that site should keep poisoning people for generations. Everybody knows it&#8217;s the right thing to do, so why don&#8217;t we do it? And this is one of those cases. Converting to renewable energy now is the right thing to do. It&#8217;s the only thing to do. And so, why aren&#8217;t we doing it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And everybody knows it. As soon as you mention it, everybody understands. &quot;Oh, obviously we should,&quot; and they do a circle dance with you. And there are lots of credible plans for converting to renewable energy. You just have to look for them. There&#8217;s one, The Solutions Project, that has solutions for every single state in the union, how to convert to convertable energy and what that would mean. There are many projects—there&#8217;s one out of Stanford—that show the benefits of this. And it&#8217;s not just in reducing the risk of climate change, which is big enough; it&#8217;s also going to save $500 billion in healthcare costs, which are due to air pollution. Fifty-nine thousand people die every year from air pollution in the U.S. That&#8217;s expensive, besides being terrible.
MIKE BONANNO : And if we don&#8217;t do it, we&#8217;re going to end up with places that look like where Gitz is from. I mean, Gitz comes from the tar sands. We went and looked at the places where his people have lived for thousands of years, and it is a big black hole in the ground. It is incredible. It&#8217;s disturbing. It&#8217;s frightening.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Well, it&#8217;s really turning a biodiverse boreal forest into a toxic wasteland. I mean, these problems are going to be there for generations to come. Like monitoring the waste that&#8217;s there from the tailings ponds from the excess, like, crap that comes out of the tar sands, minimum 150 years. It&#8217;s going to be half—it&#8217;s just going to be monitored to see what happens after that. So, literally, we&#8217;re digging these things, these gigantic tailings pond wastes, that can be seen from space. We&#8217;re destroying all the biodiversity in the area. We&#8217;re poisoning the Athabasca watershed. And all these poisons are going north. We&#8217;re seeing sicknesses that are killing people within the communities, rare cancer clusters we&#8217;ve never had. We&#8217;re seeing species of fish being deformed, tumors within animals that walk, mass amounts of birds dying every single year from landing on the tailings ponds. But not only birds landing on the tailings ponds, animals swimming through, because it looks like a river. It looks like a lake. And once they step in there, they have to be euthanized. This is the largest, most destructive industry on the face of this planet. And it&#8217;s enjoying every single day.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And that&#8217;s what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about. It&#8217;s getting oil from there to the Gulf to be shipped for export to make these companies even wealthier. And the good news is that indigenous activists in Canada have stopped already—have stalled, at least, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is about the same thing, getting the oil to the Pacific Coast. It&#8217;s completely stalled, largely, I think, because of indigenous activism.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : But not only that, I mean, there&#8217;s a lot of non-natives, as well.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yeah.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : I mean, there&#8217;s the town of Kitimat, which is a resource-based town, like fishing, lumber, all of that. It&#8217;s a resource-based town. They voted against having this pipeline coming through, because they see it as too much of an environmental risk.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, The Yes Men, folks. And now you&#8217;ve heard their latest action, and you heard it here on Democracy Now! nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsExtended Interview with The Yes Men on "Operation Second Thanks" Watch our extended web-only interview with The Yes Men and indigenous activist Gitz Crazyboy. Earlier this week, members of the group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called &quot;American Renewable Clean-Energy Network&quot; to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. After the announcement, The Yes Men and indigenous activists led the audience in a large circle dance to celebrate the fictitious plan. Click here to watch Part 1 of this interview featuring exclusive video of The Yes Men&#8217;s latest action.
AMY GOODMAN : I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, yes, The Yes Men have struck again. Earlier this week, members of the activist group spoke at the Homeland Security Congress posing as U.S. government officials. At the conference, they announced a fictitious new U.S. government plan called American Renewable Clean-Energy Network to convert the United States to 100 percent renewable energy by 2030. This is a member of The Yes Men who identified himself as Benedict Waterman, undersecretary of policy implementation at the U.S. Department of Energy.
BENEDICT WATERMAN : Thank you very much. It&#8217;s a great pleasure to be here and an honor to be making this announcement here. On behalf of the Department of Energy, I&#8217;m very excited to announce today a great new plan. It&#8217;s beginning a process that will do nothing less than convert the United States&#8217; energy grid into one that&#8217;s powered entirely by renewable sources. We&#8217;re going to do it in only slightly more time than it took to win World War II.
American Renewable Clean-Energy Network, AmeriCAN, is part of President Obama&#8217;s Climate Change Action Plan. It will put ownership of energy production directly in the hands of small companies, local entities and entrepreneurs like yourselves. The U.S. currently generates around 10 percent of our energy from renewable sources, placing us 113th in the world. By 2030, America will produce 100 percent of our energy from renewables, establishing us once again as a beacon of innovation and progress and as a global leader in confronting the supreme challenge of climate change.
BANA SLOWHORSE : There&#8217;s always this thing of like, well, how long will it last? Everybody asks that: How long will it last? How long will this green movement go on for? How long will mankind use and utilize this energy? And I think about that and the sentiments of our ancestors that signed the treaties. I&#8217;ll echo their words: As long as the sun shines, the river flows, the grass grows, the wind blows, we will have energy, and we will have these jobs.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Gitz Crazyboy posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Homeland Security Congress. He&#8217;s actually an indigenous tar sands activist. After The Yes Men spoke, they led the crowd in a line dance.
DRUM CHIEF FOUR FEATHERS : [echoed by line dance] We are home. We are here. Said, we are ho-ho-home. We are here-here-here. We are here. The sun gonna shine. The wind gonna blow. That&#8217;s all we need. To continue to grow.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, to find out more, we&#8217;re joined right now by three guests. Gitz Crazyboy, who we just heard from him in the tape posing as an official from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, actually an indigenous tar sands activist. Andy Bichlbaum is with us, of The Yes Men. He posed as Benedict Waterman, an undersecretary of policy implementation at U.S. Department of Energy. And Mike Bonanno, member of The Yes Men, played the assistant to Benedict Waterman. This congress, the Homeland Security Congress, what is it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : This is a Congress that is about contractors who want to get government contracts to do usually things like fortify the border or, you know, other homeland security issues. They pay a lot of money to go, and we got in and gave an announcement that the U.S. was going to convert to entirely renewable energy by 2030. This was the Department of Energy—I was from the Department of Energy, and I announced the sweeping plan, teaming up with the Department of Defense and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to convert the entire U.S. to renewable energy by 2030, which is entirely feasible. And everybody was thrilled.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They—yeah, believe it or not, they believed me. This—this didn&#8217;t dissuade them.
AMY GOODMAN : The congress—this National Homeland Security Congress has lobbyists, military contractors, and they believed you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Absolutely believed.
AMY GOODMAN : And they danced with you.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And they danced with us.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : In celebration, they danced.
AMY GOODMAN : Why do military contractors come?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Who knows?
MIKE BONANNO : It&#8217;s because they think—
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contracts, I think.
MIKE BONANNO : Yeah, they think they&#8217;re going to get business.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : They want defense contract—yeah, they go to these conferences because there are government officials who go. There are also—it&#8217;s a forum to promote what they do. But I think what it shows, this—the fact that we could get all these people that we think of as being from the dark side—and they are from the dark side—we could get all these people to dance in support of renewable energy, is that there are very few people who actually want the planet to be doomed. There are very few people who want us to continue on this fossil fuel path that&#8217;s leading us to doom. Even defense contractors, even Homeland Security contractors, everybody will follow. The only problem is that we have to lead. And we have to force our leaders to actually do what we need them to do, and then people will follow—except for a few oil company execs.
AMY GOODMAN : I was going to say, what&#8217;s your next step here? Well, you talked about Keystone XL.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yep.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Briefly. Keystone XL is important, I think, especially like turning a page in America&#8217;s history. You have this amazing resistance, the CIA , the new CIA , Cowboy and Indian Alliance, that are adamantly rejecting the TransCanada pipeline that&#8217;s coming through. It&#8217;s interesting to talk about the pipeline, because the State Department has released that there&#8217;s only going to be 35 permanent jobs out of this. People are saying it&#8217;s pushing thousands of jobs, but in the end, 35 permanent jobs. They&#8217;re pulling out of their responsibility to protect and maintain the pipe. People don&#8217;t know about synthetic crude oil, which is thick, and they have to mix it with other chemicals. These expediate the process of the pipes being eaten away. So we have no idea—like, a 50-year pipe with synthetic crude oil pumping through it won&#8217;t last 50 years; it&#8217;ll last less, depending on the volume and how the mixture is. That&#8217;s the CIA alliance here in America&#8217;s Heartland. There&#8217;s also the resistance pockets we&#8217;re seeing in—up with the Enbridge pipeline, with the Unist&#8217;ot&#8217;en, the Wet&#8217;suwet&#8217;en Freedom Camp.
AMY GOODMAN : Which is where?
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Northern BC. It&#8217;s right in the middle of the pipeline [inaudible].
AMY GOODMAN : British Columbia.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : British Columbia. And then on the East Coast, you have the Elsipogtog, and there are people who are adamant against fracking. These are the resistance pockets we are seeing that are continuously building every single day, and they&#8217;re adamant about this not going through.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you put this in the context of previous actions The Yes Men have done, for those who don&#8217;t know what you do?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Well, yes. Go ahead.
MIKE BONANNO : I mean, this fits within the continuum of things we&#8217;ve done, where we have impersonated government officials or, you know, government or industry bigwigs, infiltrated their conferences, and on their turf said something that either was dark satire, in the tradition of Jonathan Swift, like A Modest Proposal , or simply engage the utopian dream. So we would announce, for example, on live television that Dow Chemical was finally going to clean up the mess in Bhopal and compensate the victims, which they haven&#8217;t done even 30 years on from the largest industrial accident in history. And by doing that, it creates this moment of confusion, where people ask, &quot;Why don&#8217;t they do that? Why don&#8217;t we simply do the right thing?&quot; Because there&#8217;s nobody out there who thinks that the people in Bhopal should keep suffering, who thinks that the toxic waste that they left on that site should keep poisoning people for generations. Everybody knows it&#8217;s the right thing to do, so why don&#8217;t we do it? And this is one of those cases. Converting to renewable energy now is the right thing to do. It&#8217;s the only thing to do. And so, why aren&#8217;t we doing it?
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And everybody knows it. As soon as you mention it, everybody understands. &quot;Oh, obviously we should,&quot; and they do a circle dance with you. And there are lots of credible plans for converting to renewable energy. You just have to look for them. There&#8217;s one, The Solutions Project, that has solutions for every single state in the union, how to convert to convertable energy and what that would mean. There are many projects—there&#8217;s one out of Stanford—that show the benefits of this. And it&#8217;s not just in reducing the risk of climate change, which is big enough; it&#8217;s also going to save $500 billion in healthcare costs, which are due to air pollution. Fifty-nine thousand people die every year from air pollution in the U.S. That&#8217;s expensive, besides being terrible.
MIKE BONANNO : And if we don&#8217;t do it, we&#8217;re going to end up with places that look like where Gitz is from. I mean, Gitz comes from the tar sands. We went and looked at the places where his people have lived for thousands of years, and it is a big black hole in the ground. It is incredible. It&#8217;s disturbing. It&#8217;s frightening.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : Well, it&#8217;s really turning a biodiverse boreal forest into a toxic wasteland. I mean, these problems are going to be there for generations to come. Like monitoring the waste that&#8217;s there from the tailings ponds from the excess, like, crap that comes out of the tar sands, minimum 150 years. It&#8217;s going to be half—it&#8217;s just going to be monitored to see what happens after that. So, literally, we&#8217;re digging these things, these gigantic tailings pond wastes, that can be seen from space. We&#8217;re destroying all the biodiversity in the area. We&#8217;re poisoning the Athabasca watershed. And all these poisons are going north. We&#8217;re seeing sicknesses that are killing people within the communities, rare cancer clusters we&#8217;ve never had. We&#8217;re seeing species of fish being deformed, tumors within animals that walk, mass amounts of birds dying every single year from landing on the tailings ponds. But not only birds landing on the tailings ponds, animals swimming through, because it looks like a river. It looks like a lake. And once they step in there, they have to be euthanized. This is the largest, most destructive industry on the face of this planet. And it&#8217;s enjoying every single day.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : And that&#8217;s what the Keystone XL pipeline is all about. It&#8217;s getting oil from there to the Gulf to be shipped for export to make these companies even wealthier. And the good news is that indigenous activists in Canada have stopped already—have stalled, at least, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which is about the same thing, getting the oil to the Pacific Coast. It&#8217;s completely stalled, largely, I think, because of indigenous activism.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : But not only that, I mean, there&#8217;s a lot of non-natives, as well.
ANDY BICHLBAUM : Yeah.
GITZ CRAZYBOY : I mean, there&#8217;s the town of Kitimat, which is a resource-based town, like fishing, lumber, all of that. It&#8217;s a resource-based town. They voted against having this pipeline coming through, because they see it as too much of an environmental risk.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, The Yes Men, folks. And now you&#8217;ve heard their latest action, and you heard it here on Democracy Now! nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsCowboy Indian Alliance Protests Keystone XL Pipeline in D.C. After Latest Obama Admin Delayhttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/28/cowboy_indian_alliance_protests_keystone_xl
tag:democracynow.org,2014-04-28:en/story/44f9c2 AMY GOODMAN : Thousands of people rallied in Washington, D.C., on Saturday calling on President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The rally came four days after Earth Day, when a group of ranchers, farmers and tribal communities from along the pipeline route rode into Washington, D.C., and set up the Reject and Protect encampment near the White House. The group called themselves the Cowboy Indian Alliance.
During Saturday&#8217;s procession, members of the alliance presented a hand-painted teepee to the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian as a gift to President Obama. The teepee represented the Cowboy and Indian Alliance&#8217;s hopes for protected land and clean water. Legendary musician Neil Young joined the protesters who rallied on the National Mall, then marched past the Capitol building.
NEIL YOUNG : We&#8217;re all children of Mother Earth, and that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m here, because I feel we&#8217;re all threatened by what&#8217;s happening. As a planet, we&#8217;re threatened. I feel that the fossil fuel age is ending. It&#8217;s having its first death gasps. And we need to keep pushing. We need to stop this pipeline, which is bringing this really bad fuel from Canada, from the tail of the snake, all the way down to the head of the snake in Texas.
AMY GOODMAN : Saturday&#8217;s rally came a week after the Obama administration announced it had again delayed a decision on approval or rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The State Department says it will await the results of legal challenges to the pipeline&#8217;s proposed route through Nebraska. That means a final move would not likely come until after the midterm elections.
To talk more about the protests and the pipeline, we&#8217;re joined by three guests. In Washington, D.C., Gary Dorr is with us. He is the media and logistical coordinator for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe&#8217;s Shield the People project, an effort to defend against the Keystone XL pipeline. He&#8217;s a member of the Nez Perce Nation and was one of the organizers of the Reject and Protect encampment in D.C.
Joining us here in New York is actress and activist Daryl Hannah. She participated in the Reject and Protect protests in D.C. She has been arrested three times for protests against the Keystone XL.
Also with us here in New York is Art Tanderup, a Nebraska farmer who was in Washington, D.C., for the protests. He&#8217;s also a member of the Cowboy Indian Alliance.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Let&#8217;s begin with Gary Dorr in Washington. Why is this issue, the Keystone XL, so important to you?
GARY DORR : Ta&#8217;c meeywi . Good morning. This issue is important to me, certainly for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Great Sioux Nation, because it threatens the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for 2.3 million people. It also threatens the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for probably a couple &#39;nother million. So we&#39;re talking about five million American citizens who are—who have their drinking water supply threatened. This water supply also provides crops, water for our crops, for irrigation. So now we&#8217;re talking about more and more millions and millions of people who could be affected. This could be an economic bust for the Midwest.
AMY GOODMAN : Art Tanderup, you&#8217;re a Nebraska farmer. You&#8217;re part of the Cowboy Indian Alliance. Explain how this came together and why you feel so strongly about this. This could bring business to Nebraska, couldn&#8217;t it?
ART TANDERUP : Yes, it could—it could bring business to Nebraska, but it&#8217;s the wrong type of business. It&#8217;s the business that would bring temporary jobs for the construction period, and then there would only be approximately 35 jobs for the duration—or, for after that, for maintenance, etc., of the pipeline.
The Cowboy Indian Alliance was formed a couple years ago, because of common interests between farmers, ranchers and Native Americans in northern Nebraska and southern South Dakota. We&#8217;ve come together as brothers and sisters to fight this Keystone XL pipeline, because of the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer, to the land, to the health of the people.
AMY GOODMAN : Explain what that is, the Ogallala Aquifer.
ART TANDERUP : OK, the Ogallala Aquifer is like the United States&#8217; largest clean water aquifer, underground aquifer. It covers—it starts up in South Dakota, covers most of Nebraska and on down into Kansas and parts of Oklahoma, as well. And it&#8217;s—you know, it&#8217;s not necessarily a big lake under the ground; it&#8217;s more of a huge sponge of—in gravel, sand, etc., that provides clean drinking water. It provides water for livestock, for wildlilfe, for human consumption, for irrigation. It&#8217;s the livelihood of the Heartland.
AMY GOODMAN : And explain why your farm, your community is threatened. Where do you live?
ART TANDERUP : We live north of Neligh, Nebraska, and we&#8217;re right on the pipeline route, as well as part of our farm is on the Ponca Trail of Tears from back in the 1870s, when Chief Standing Bear and his people were driven from the Niobrara area to Oklahoma.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to go to Cindy Schild . She is a senior manager of the American Petroleum Institute&#8217;s refining and oil sands program, defends the pipeline. She was on our show earlier this year.
CINDY SCHILD : At this point, we have spent five years reviewing the environmental impacts time and time again, despite the five assessments and most transparent and thorough process to date on anything of its nature. We have seen the same conclusions: minimal impacts, negligible impacts. The climate answer, the environmental answer and concerns have been addressed. This is one factor to be considered amongst several, and it&#8217;s time to determine that the project&#8217;s in the nation&#8217;s interest.
AMY GOODMAN : Daryl Hannah, what&#8217;s your response to Cindy Schild?
DARYL HANNAH : Well, first of all, I&#8217;d just like to say that we can&#8217;t really afford to fall asleep on this one, because a delay is not a rejection. And that&#8217;s why even though there was just this delay, so many people came together to, you know, show continuing solidarity and support for a full-on rejection of the Keystone pipeline. You know, there&#8217;s a lot of disinformation out there. There&#8217;s a—a good amount of American citizens still believe that the Keystone has something to do with reducing our dependence on foreign oil or will reduce the gas prices, which is a complete fallacy. I mean, the lion&#8217;s share of the oil that will be refined down in the Gulf of Mexico, if the Keystone goes through, is intended for the global market, and we&#8217;d still have to be the highest bidder. So—
AMY GOODMAN : So explain. This pipeline that would go from Alberta, Canada, down to the Gulf of Mexico—
DARYL HANNAH : Right, through six states.
AMY GOODMAN : —actually would not be providing oil to the United States.
DARYL HANNAH : No, no, no. This is a landlocked resource, and they need to get it to a coastline so that they can refine it and make it available for the global market. Now, there are many proposals on the table. If you look at a map, any, you know, simpleminded person could see that the closest route would be for them to get to one of the Canadian coasts, but so far none of those proposals have succeeded.
AMY GOODMAN : Why?
DARYL HANNAH : Well, the First—First Nations communities in Canada have their treaty rights built into their constitution, and so far they&#8217;ve been successful at blocking those proposals. But the United States, obviously money tends to rule our political and legislative systems, and so they&#8217;ve had a little bit more success in getting the proposal of the Keystone through, although you see all the way through every single state that this pipeline would pass, there has been pushback from the citizens. And it&#8217;s just like what you said in the opening of your—of the show today: You know, this country was built for the citizens, not for the corporations. And we would still—we would still have to be the highest bidder, no matter what coastline that this oil gets to. And so, you think about how much natural gas we&#8217;ve produced in the last several years, and yet, still, the gas—natural gas prices were exorbitant, and natural gas was almost inaccessible in some parts of the country. So this is similar, a similar situation, where this pipeline would threaten our aquifers. Water, luckily, is not a liberal or a conservative issue; it&#8217;s an issue that concerns us all, and so it&#8217;s brought all of these forces together.
AMY GOODMAN : Why did you get involved with this? I mean, you&#8217;re a famous, well-known actress. You have gotten now arrested a number of times around this.
DARYL HANNAH : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : Why is the Keystone XL so critical for you?
DARYL HANNAH : Well, I&#8217;ve seen the impacts of some of the extreme extraction processes that we&#8217;ve resorted to since the easy-to-access fossil fuel supplies have become harder to reach. I&#8217;ve visited people in the Appalachians who were affected by mountaintop removal. I&#8217;ve seen communities that have been affected and, you know, their water supplies poisoned by fracking. Of course, the Gulf of Mexico, which was just recently declared clean, is still suffering from this sludge at the bottom of the Gulf that is affecting the food chain. And BP was just issued new permits to drill again. So, you know, these extreme forms of extraction should be against the law, and we should be—we should be starting to build some resilience and some self-sufficiency by developing renewable energy infrastructure. We have the technology. We just need the will.
AMY GOODMAN : And what word do you have on this delay? You talk about the delay at this point is not a victory. It is pretty astounding that it has been delayed repeatedly. What do you think is going on in the White House right now?
DARYL HANNAH : I have no idea. I have a—I have a suspicion that they don&#8217;t want to lose any constituents before the midterm elections. And so, they&#8217;re—you know, so the delay will probably be put off until after that election is resolved. But nevertheless, you know, this is a—the Keystone pipeline is a conduit to further expansion of the tar sands. And that&#8217;s really what&#8217;s at the bottom of this proposal.
AMY GOODMAN : Gary Dorr, the kind of alliance that&#8217;s taking place, you have this new Cowboy Indian Alliance, but also the Native nations on both sides of border. Can you talk about the kind of organizing that&#8217;s going on from Canada to the United States?
GARY DORR : Well, they&#8217;ve been down here to the camp, Winona LaDuke and a couple of other people, Cheryl—Crystal Lameman—what was the other—Chief George, [Rueben] George. And we have formed—you know, we have had visits with them. They&#8217;ve visited our communities. I know some of them have been to the Nez Perce Nation in Idaho. And they&#8217;ve brought to light those things that—you know, like Daryl said, there was a couple of mistruths or untruths that were put out. And I think the American Petroleum Institute needs to go up to Fort Chipewyan, where, before, there was a negligible cancer rate, before this all started, and now Fort Chip, that little, tiny, little hamlet has a cancer rate 400 times the national Canadian per capita average. So, there&#8217;s all sorts of, I guess, truths that are coming out from our alliances with these people, from speaking with these people, from having them come down here and speak. It&#8217;s like yesterday, Winona LaDuke was saying, you know, that every single person up there, every single family—every single family has cancer in their families now in Fort Chip. It&#8217;s been—
AMY GOODMAN : Because of?
GARY DORR : Because of the tar sands mining going on up there and the minimum refining process and dilution process that&#8217;s going on up there.
AMY GOODMAN : I want to ask Nebraska farmer Art Tanderup about what happened earlier this month when activists unveiled a massive crop art opposing the Keystone XL pipeline on his farm in Nebraska. Using tractors, organizers dug into their cornfields an image of a rancher and a Native American with the inscription &quot;Heartland = No KXL .&quot; The image is said to be the size of 80 football fields. How did this come about, Art?
ART TANDERUP : Actually, artist—aerial artist John Quigley was so concerned about this that he—about the pipeline, that he wanted to help make a statement. And he felt that the best place to do that would be in the Heartland on the proposed route. And so, we came together on this, and we took a field, a half-mile long and a quarter-mile wide, and created a magnificent piece of art. And it makes such a statement. We&#8217;ve literally drawn a line in the sand, because this is sand. It&#8217;s a very sandy soil that allows—it&#8217;s highly permeable and allows substances to move through it rather quickly. But this—you see the image there. The Native American image there is the image of Gary Dorr, and the cowboy image is that of Ben Gotschall, a rancher from the Atkinson area. And the lines underneath them signifies the water and how important that water is. The sun around the outside has seven rays for the seven generations.
AMY GOODMAN : Explain the Nebraska governor&#8217;s position on the pipeline.
ART TANDERUP : The Nebraska governor—back when this pipeline was first proposed, it was further west of us, and he came out very strongly and said, &quot;We will not—we will not have this go through the Sandhills. We will not have it go over the Ogallala Aquifer. So the route must be changed if it&#8217;s to come through Nebraska.&quot; So—and a map was used that put the area I live out of the Sandhills, and they forgot about the aquifer issue. So, they moved it east a few miles, and it&#8217;s still in the bottom part of the Sandhills, and it&#8217;s still very much over the aquifer. So now he wants it built as fast as it can be built. And he&#8217;s forgotten about the people of Nebraska and what this thing could do to them and how it could ruin our aquifer.
AMY GOODMAN : You know, in a moment we&#8217;re going to be speaking to Ralph Nader. He feels there&#8217;s a kind of right-left alliance that is happening in this country at the grassroots level that is unstoppable. But I wanted to ask you, Daryl Hannah, the former energy secretary, Steven Chu, told the Oil &amp; Gas Journal , &quot;I don&#8217;t have a position on whether the Keystone Pipeline should be built. ... But I will say that the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one and not a scientific one.&quot; That&#8217;s very interesting.
DARYL HANNAH : Yeah. Well, I mean, in this country, it seems that business has always been the bottom line. The mighty dollar, you know, has been the bottom line, rather than the interests of people thriving. And it has been very encouraging to see all of these disparate forces come together despite all of the polarizing that&#8217;s going on in the media. People are really uniting over these basic life support systems and protection of our futures. AMYGOODMAN: Thousands of people rallied in Washington, D.C., on Saturday calling on President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The rally came four days after Earth Day, when a group of ranchers, farmers and tribal communities from along the pipeline route rode into Washington, D.C., and set up the Reject and Protect encampment near the White House. The group called themselves the Cowboy Indian Alliance.

During Saturday’s procession, members of the alliance presented a hand-painted teepee to the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian as a gift to President Obama. The teepee represented the Cowboy and Indian Alliance’s hopes for protected land and clean water. Legendary musician Neil Young joined the protesters who rallied on the National Mall, then marched past the Capitol building.

NEILYOUNG: We’re all children of Mother Earth, and that’s why I’m here, because I feel we’re all threatened by what’s happening. As a planet, we’re threatened. I feel that the fossil fuel age is ending. It’s having its first death gasps. And we need to keep pushing. We need to stop this pipeline, which is bringing this really bad fuel from Canada, from the tail of the snake, all the way down to the head of the snake in Texas.

AMYGOODMAN: Saturday’s rally came a week after the Obama administration announced it had again delayed a decision on approval or rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The State Department says it will await the results of legal challenges to the pipeline’s proposed route through Nebraska. That means a final move would not likely come until after the midterm elections.

To talk more about the protests and the pipeline, we’re joined by three guests. In Washington, D.C., Gary Dorr is with us. He is the media and logistical coordinator for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe’s Shield the People project, an effort to defend against the Keystone XL pipeline. He’s a member of the Nez Perce Nation and was one of the organizers of the Reject and Protect encampment in D.C.

Joining us here in New York is actress and activist Daryl Hannah. She participated in the Reject and Protect protests in D.C. She has been arrested three times for protests against the Keystone XL.

Also with us here in New York is Art Tanderup, a Nebraska farmer who was in Washington, D.C., for the protests. He’s also a member of the Cowboy Indian Alliance.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Gary Dorr in Washington. Why is this issue, the Keystone XL, so important to you?

GARYDORR:Ta’c meeywi. Good morning. This issue is important to me, certainly for the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Great Sioux Nation, because it threatens the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for 2.3 million people. It also threatens the Missouri River, which provides drinking water for probably a couple 'nother million. So we're talking about five million American citizens who are—who have their drinking water supply threatened. This water supply also provides crops, water for our crops, for irrigation. So now we’re talking about more and more millions and millions of people who could be affected. This could be an economic bust for the Midwest.

AMYGOODMAN: Art Tanderup, you’re a Nebraska farmer. You’re part of the Cowboy Indian Alliance. Explain how this came together and why you feel so strongly about this. This could bring business to Nebraska, couldn’t it?

ARTTANDERUP: Yes, it could—it could bring business to Nebraska, but it’s the wrong type of business. It’s the business that would bring temporary jobs for the construction period, and then there would only be approximately 35 jobs for the duration—or, for after that, for maintenance, etc., of the pipeline.

The Cowboy Indian Alliance was formed a couple years ago, because of common interests between farmers, ranchers and Native Americans in northern Nebraska and southern South Dakota. We’ve come together as brothers and sisters to fight this Keystone XL pipeline, because of the risk to the Ogallala Aquifer, to the land, to the health of the people.

AMYGOODMAN: Explain what that is, the Ogallala Aquifer.

ARTTANDERUP: OK, the Ogallala Aquifer is like the United States’ largest clean water aquifer, underground aquifer. It covers—it starts up in South Dakota, covers most of Nebraska and on down into Kansas and parts of Oklahoma, as well. And it’s—you know, it’s not necessarily a big lake under the ground; it’s more of a huge sponge of—in gravel, sand, etc., that provides clean drinking water. It provides water for livestock, for wildlilfe, for human consumption, for irrigation. It’s the livelihood of the Heartland.

AMYGOODMAN: And explain why your farm, your community is threatened. Where do you live?

ARTTANDERUP: We live north of Neligh, Nebraska, and we’re right on the pipeline route, as well as part of our farm is on the Ponca Trail of Tears from back in the 1870s, when Chief Standing Bear and his people were driven from the Niobrara area to Oklahoma.

AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to go to Cindy Schild. She is a senior manager of the American Petroleum Institute’s refining and oil sands program, defends the pipeline. She was on our show earlier this year.

CINDYSCHILD: At this point, we have spent five years reviewing the environmental impacts time and time again, despite the five assessments and most transparent and thorough process to date on anything of its nature. We have seen the same conclusions: minimal impacts, negligible impacts. The climate answer, the environmental answer and concerns have been addressed. This is one factor to be considered amongst several, and it’s time to determine that the project’s in the nation’s interest.

AMYGOODMAN: Daryl Hannah, what’s your response to Cindy Schild?

DARYLHANNAH: Well, first of all, I’d just like to say that we can’t really afford to fall asleep on this one, because a delay is not a rejection. And that’s why even though there was just this delay, so many people came together to, you know, show continuing solidarity and support for a full-on rejection of the Keystone pipeline. You know, there’s a lot of disinformation out there. There’s a—a good amount of American citizens still believe that the Keystone has something to do with reducing our dependence on foreign oil or will reduce the gas prices, which is a complete fallacy. I mean, the lion’s share of the oil that will be refined down in the Gulf of Mexico, if the Keystone goes through, is intended for the global market, and we’d still have to be the highest bidder. So—

AMYGOODMAN: So explain. This pipeline that would go from Alberta, Canada, down to the Gulf of Mexico—

DARYLHANNAH: Right, through six states.

AMYGOODMAN: —actually would not be providing oil to the United States.

DARYLHANNAH: No, no, no. This is a landlocked resource, and they need to get it to a coastline so that they can refine it and make it available for the global market. Now, there are many proposals on the table. If you look at a map, any, you know, simpleminded person could see that the closest route would be for them to get to one of the Canadian coasts, but so far none of those proposals have succeeded.

AMYGOODMAN: Why?

DARYLHANNAH: Well, the First—First Nations communities in Canada have their treaty rights built into their constitution, and so far they’ve been successful at blocking those proposals. But the United States, obviously money tends to rule our political and legislative systems, and so they’ve had a little bit more success in getting the proposal of the Keystone through, although you see all the way through every single state that this pipeline would pass, there has been pushback from the citizens. And it’s just like what you said in the opening of your—of the show today: You know, this country was built for the citizens, not for the corporations. And we would still—we would still have to be the highest bidder, no matter what coastline that this oil gets to. And so, you think about how much natural gas we’ve produced in the last several years, and yet, still, the gas—natural gas prices were exorbitant, and natural gas was almost inaccessible in some parts of the country. So this is similar, a similar situation, where this pipeline would threaten our aquifers. Water, luckily, is not a liberal or a conservative issue; it’s an issue that concerns us all, and so it’s brought all of these forces together.

AMYGOODMAN: Why did you get involved with this? I mean, you’re a famous, well-known actress. You have gotten now arrested a number of times around this.

DARYLHANNAH: Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: Why is the Keystone XL so critical for you?

DARYLHANNAH: Well, I’ve seen the impacts of some of the extreme extraction processes that we’ve resorted to since the easy-to-access fossil fuel supplies have become harder to reach. I’ve visited people in the Appalachians who were affected by mountaintop removal. I’ve seen communities that have been affected and, you know, their water supplies poisoned by fracking. Of course, the Gulf of Mexico, which was just recently declared clean, is still suffering from this sludge at the bottom of the Gulf that is affecting the food chain. And BP was just issued new permits to drill again. So, you know, these extreme forms of extraction should be against the law, and we should be—we should be starting to build some resilience and some self-sufficiency by developing renewable energy infrastructure. We have the technology. We just need the will.

AMYGOODMAN: And what word do you have on this delay? You talk about the delay at this point is not a victory. It is pretty astounding that it has been delayed repeatedly. What do you think is going on in the White House right now?

DARYLHANNAH: I have no idea. I have a—I have a suspicion that they don’t want to lose any constituents before the midterm elections. And so, they’re—you know, so the delay will probably be put off until after that election is resolved. But nevertheless, you know, this is a—the Keystone pipeline is a conduit to further expansion of the tar sands. And that’s really what’s at the bottom of this proposal.

AMYGOODMAN: Gary Dorr, the kind of alliance that’s taking place, you have this new Cowboy Indian Alliance, but also the Native nations on both sides of border. Can you talk about the kind of organizing that’s going on from Canada to the United States?

GARYDORR: Well, they’ve been down here to the camp, Winona LaDuke and a couple of other people, Cheryl—Crystal Lameman—what was the other—Chief George, [Rueben] George. And we have formed—you know, we have had visits with them. They’ve visited our communities. I know some of them have been to the Nez Perce Nation in Idaho. And they’ve brought to light those things that—you know, like Daryl said, there was a couple of mistruths or untruths that were put out. And I think the American Petroleum Institute needs to go up to Fort Chipewyan, where, before, there was a negligible cancer rate, before this all started, and now Fort Chip, that little, tiny, little hamlet has a cancer rate 400 times the national Canadian per capita average. So, there’s all sorts of, I guess, truths that are coming out from our alliances with these people, from speaking with these people, from having them come down here and speak. It’s like yesterday, Winona LaDuke was saying, you know, that every single person up there, every single family—every single family has cancer in their families now in Fort Chip. It’s been—

AMYGOODMAN: Because of?

GARYDORR: Because of the tar sands mining going on up there and the minimum refining process and dilution process that’s going on up there.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to ask Nebraska farmer Art Tanderup about what happened earlier this month when activists unveiled a massive crop art opposing the Keystone XL pipeline on his farm in Nebraska. Using tractors, organizers dug into their cornfields an image of a rancher and a Native American with the inscription "Heartland = No KXL." The image is said to be the size of 80 football fields. How did this come about, Art?

ARTTANDERUP: Actually, artist—aerial artist John Quigley was so concerned about this that he—about the pipeline, that he wanted to help make a statement. And he felt that the best place to do that would be in the Heartland on the proposed route. And so, we came together on this, and we took a field, a half-mile long and a quarter-mile wide, and created a magnificent piece of art. And it makes such a statement. We’ve literally drawn a line in the sand, because this is sand. It’s a very sandy soil that allows—it’s highly permeable and allows substances to move through it rather quickly. But this—you see the image there. The Native American image there is the image of Gary Dorr, and the cowboy image is that of Ben Gotschall, a rancher from the Atkinson area. And the lines underneath them signifies the water and how important that water is. The sun around the outside has seven rays for the seven generations.

AMYGOODMAN: Explain the Nebraska governor’s position on the pipeline.

ARTTANDERUP: The Nebraska governor—back when this pipeline was first proposed, it was further west of us, and he came out very strongly and said, "We will not—we will not have this go through the Sandhills. We will not have it go over the Ogallala Aquifer. So the route must be changed if it’s to come through Nebraska." So—and a map was used that put the area I live out of the Sandhills, and they forgot about the aquifer issue. So, they moved it east a few miles, and it’s still in the bottom part of the Sandhills, and it’s still very much over the aquifer. So now he wants it built as fast as it can be built. And he’s forgotten about the people of Nebraska and what this thing could do to them and how it could ruin our aquifer.

AMYGOODMAN: You know, in a moment we’re going to be speaking to Ralph Nader. He feels there’s a kind of right-left alliance that is happening in this country at the grassroots level that is unstoppable. But I wanted to ask you, Daryl Hannah, the former energy secretary, Steven Chu, told the Oil & Gas Journal, "I don’t have a position on whether the Keystone Pipeline should be built. ... But I will say that the decision on whether the construction should happen was a political one and not a scientific one." That’s very interesting.

DARYLHANNAH: Yeah. Well, I mean, in this country, it seems that business has always been the bottom line. The mighty dollar, you know, has been the bottom line, rather than the interests of people thriving. And it has been very encouraging to see all of these disparate forces come together despite all of the polarizing that’s going on in the media. People are really uniting over these basic life support systems and protection of our futures.

]]>
Mon, 28 Apr 2014 00:00:00 -0400"A Slow Genocide of the People": Uranium Mining Leaves Toxic Nuclear Legacy on Indigenous Landhttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/14/a_slow_genocide_of_the_people
tag:democracynow.org,2014-03-14:en/story/8fd04e AMY GOODMAN : &quot;Song of the Sun&quot; by Klee Benally. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman. Yes, we are on the road in Flagstaff, Arizona. Every year, millions of tourists flock here to visit the Grand Canyon, marvel at the spectacularly vast gorge carved out by the Colorado River. This natural wonder is a window into the Southwest region&#8217;s geological and Native American past.
Today the Grand Canyon is also the site of an ongoing battle over uranium mining. Last year, a company called Energy Fuels Resources was given federal approval to reopen a mine six miles from the Grand Canyon&#8217;s popular South Rim entrance. A coalition of Native and environmental groups have protested the decision, saying uranium mining could strain scarce water sources in the desert area and pose serious health effects.
Members of the Navajo Nations are all too familiar with the dangers posed by uranium mining, because their tribal lands are littered with abandoned mines. From 1944 to 1986, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore were chiseled and blasted from the mountains and plains of this region. Over the years, more than a thousand mines and four processing mills on tribal land closed. However, the mining companies never properly disposed of their radioactive waste piles, leading to a spike in cancer rates and other health ailments.
This is a clip from the documentary The Return of Navajo Boy about Navajo who have suffered health problems due to environmental contamination.
LORENZO BEGAY : My mom and my Uncle Bernie were just little kids when their mom and their grandma both got lung disease.
BERNIE CLY : [translated] I remember we lived by the mines. Uranium was in the water we used for washing and drinking. This is how we lived. One day, Mom went to the hospital. Us kids waited all summer for her to come home. Harry Goulding came and told us that Mom died. Grandma started to cry, &quot;My daughter...&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s a clip from the award-winning documentary film, The Return of Navajo Boy , produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain.
Well, for more on the uranium mining in this region and other environmental challenges, we continue our conversation with Taylor McKinnon, director of energy with Grand Canyon Trust, and with Klee Benally, a Diné, or Navajo, activist. He&#8217;s the former lead singer of the punk band Blackfire; founder of Outta Your Backpack Mediacollective, which teaches filmmaking to indigenous youth; and a volunteer with Clean Up the Mines!, a nationwide effort to clean up abandoned uranium mines.
Taylor McKinnon, as well as Klee Benally, again, welcome. Klee, talk more about what the Navajo, the Diné people, are facing.
KLEE BENALLY : Yá&#8217;át&#8217;ééh abíní . And first of all, thank you and welcome to the racist state of Arizona and the slightly racist, slightly less racist city of Flagstaff. We have been challenged with resource colonization in this area for many years. It&#8217;s really the battle—the geopolitics here are rooted in racism. They&#8217;re rooted in the corporate greed that we continue to face this day. More than 20,000 Diné, or Navajo, people have been forcibly relocated from our homelands because of Peabody Coal&#8217;s activities on Black Mesa, and we have an estimated more than 1,000 abandoned uranium mines on our lands. In 2005, the Diné, or Navajo, Nation decided to ban all uranium-mining activities on our lands. But today, we have tribal council representatives who are really just selling our future away and trying to lift this ban. And so we, at this point, are in a situation where there have been no meaningful health studies on the impacts of uranium mining in our community.
AMY GOODMAN : Give us an example of what one of these abandoned mines look like.
KLEE BENALLY : Well, I was actually just in Cameron, about 40 minutes away from here, yesterday with Taylor McKinnon doing a presentation. And just about 50 feet away from the chapter house, which is the local government area in this area, there is an abandoned uranium mine that is a—looks like a hill. I mean, contaminated radioactive dirt looks like regular dirt. It&#8217;s an invisible threat. But there were toys. There were—from what I understand, there were signs of children playing in this hill, and there were houses just right the base of this. But one of these rocks, when a Geiger counter was set on it, it went through the roof. And so, these abandoned uranium mines look like the rest of the natural landscape.
AMY GOODMAN : And there are how many?
KLEE BENALLY : There are an estimated over a thousand in our homelands. But there are estimated to be over 10,000 abandoned uranium mines throughout the whole United States, and it&#8217;s primarily within 15 Western states. But the EPA has never done a meaningful inventory on these threats that are really a toxic legacy that impacts us to this day. It&#8217;s really a slow genocide of the people, not just indigenous people of this region, but it&#8217;s estimated to be that there are over 10 million people who are residing within 50 miles of abandoned uranium mines.
AMY GOODMAN : Taylor, what is Grand Canyon Trust doing about this?
TAYLOR McKINNON: We&#8217;ve been largely focused on efforts by the uranium industry to develop new mines on public lands. And since the mid-2000s, when the price of uranium spiked, we&#8217;ve seen a real resurgence of uranium-mining activity in northern Arizona. So we&#8217;ve been—we led the charge to compel the—alongside a number of different tribal and conservation and community partners, to compel the Obama administration to enact a ban on new mining in Grand Canyon&#8217;s watersheds. That went into effect in 2012. However, it did not apply to old mines, mines that were built in the 1980s. And we&#8217;ve seen federal agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service—allow three of those mines to reopen without undertaking new public or environmental reviews. They&#8217;re relying on their 1980s reviews, and thus effectively ignoring reams of new science about the potential impacts of those mines to groundwater, to aquifers that feed springs in the Grand Canyon, that are critical for wildlife, that are held sacred by Native peoples, and that form all of, except for the Colorado River, the perennial surface water in the Grand Canyon. These are—
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s turn to another clip from the film, The Return of Navajo Boy , the award-winning documentary produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain about the Cly family, Navajo who have suffered health problems due to environmental contamination. Here, we hear more about the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo community, on the Diné people.
DINÉ WOMAN : [translated] We live in the midst of uranium. We walk upon it every day. Our houses are built with it. It&#8217;s in our walls.
KERR -McGEE OIL INDUSTRIES PROMOTIONAL FILM : Royalties from the uranium mines are providing much-needed cash for the Navajo prospector and for the tribe. Many of the Navajo men are employed in the uranium mines, where they are valued as conscientious workers.
LORENZO BEGAY : The mining company didn&#8217;t tell our fathers and uncles that uranium could kill them or they would be used to make atomic bombs.
AMY GOODMAN : Again, that&#8217;s a clip from The Return of Navajo Boy . Klee, what are families told? What are communities told? I mean, we&#8217;re dealing with, one, the abandonment of a thousand uranium mines, but then also the building of more now.
KLEE BENALLY : Well, the EPA has a five-year plan that was initiated to clean up these abandoned uranium mines. But the reality is, is that these mines are not being cleaned up. The EPA is turning these abandoned sites into containment or to waste dumps that are toxic, that are hazardous, that are still leaching contaminants into our waterways, that are still impacting our grazing lands and our sheep and so forth. And we have abandoned uranium mines and threatened new proposed uranium mines in proximity to our sacred sites, which are vital for our way of life, for our cultural identity. So we are being told that—essentially, the message that we are sent is, is that our—the impacts to our health, our well-being and who we are in our sacred lands is not meaningful enough to have serious cleanup.
AMY GOODMAN : How do the rules work, because of the different laws on Native American reservations?
KLEE BENALLY : Well, the cleanup is a slow process. It&#8217;s a complex process. And I think that it is challenging in relation to the current law on the rez, but we have to look at the reality that, as I mentioned before, there are more than 10,000 abandoned uranium mines throughout the U.S. There are some areas where the abandoned mines or new proposed mines are located in close proximity to our reservation lands. They&#8217;re on public—they&#8217;re on private lands, and they leach toxic contaminants. The dust, the toxic particles, blow into our communities. And we have no control. We have no way to regulate that. I mean, for example, in Church Rock, New Mexico, where in 1979 one of the largest toxic spills happened in U.S. history, there&#8217;s still nothing that has really been done to clean up. There&#8217;s new proposed mines happening outside of our tribal lands, right off the borders. So, this is a very complex issue. There are multiple agencies that are involved. And what we end up seeing happen is, is that our future gets railroaded over in the interests of corporate greed.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk briefly about the San Francisco Peaks and what they are, for people who have never heard of them?
KLEE BENALLY : Doko&#8217;oo&#8217;sliid, or the holy San Francisco Peaks, are holy to more than 13 indigenous nations. They are central for our cultural survival.
AMY GOODMAN : Where are they?
KLEE BENALLY : They&#8217;re located just right outside of Flagstaff, and they&#8217;re the highest point in northern Arizona. You can see the Grand Canyon from them. You can see just such a beautiful landscape. And they&#8217;re vital not only for our cultural practices, but they&#8217;re an ecological island that are home to endemic species such as the San Francisco Peaks ragwort, which is only found on the San Francisco Peaks and nowhere else in the world.
AMY GOODMAN : And what&#8217;s happening with them?
KLEE BENALLY : Well, right now, we&#8217;re—for the past 30 years—really, for the past 20 years, it&#8217;s been a heated battle to protect this mountain from resource extraction and development, and not just talking about coal, uranium, oil, natural gases, but recreation as a resource extraction on these sacred lands. The San Francisco Peaks are managed by the United States Forest Service as public land, and currently they lease part of those lands to a ski resort known as Arizona Snowbowl, that is—
AMY GOODMAN : Snowbowl?
KLEE BENALLY : Snowbowl. And they&#8217;ve permitted to expand their development into rare alpine forests, clearcutting more than 30,000 trees, many of them old-growth. And the most controversial part is that they&#8217;ve entered into a contract with the city of Flagstaff. The politicians of Flagstaff have sold 180 million gallons of treated sewage per year for snow making. And this, right—
AMY GOODMAN : Of sewage?
KLEE BENALLY : Of treated sewage for snow making.
AMY GOODMAN : So this is greywater?
KLEE BENALLY : Well, it&#8217;s considered treated sewage, or reclaimed water. And so, in this case, there are harmful contaminants that are not tested or treated for by the EPA that are allowed to be in this wastewater, and it&#8217;s being sprayed on this sacred church of ours. Right now, even though we&#8217;ve had more than 10 years of legal battles that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, the situation is that we don&#8217;t have guaranteed protections for religious freedom as indigenous people. And Snowbowl has become—in 2011, they became the first ski area in the world to make snow out of 100 percent treated sewage effluent.
AMY GOODMAN : Taylor, is there any legal means to challenge this?
TAYLOR McKINNON: Well, it&#8217;s not an issue that Grand Canyon Trust has worked on. I know that the Hopi Tribe has ongoing legal challenges in state court and federal court.
AMY GOODMAN : So, are the Navajo—Klee, are the Navajo and Hopi working together on this?
KLEE BENALLY : We had a coalition of 14 indigenous nations actually working together on this with six environmental groups, that had led the charge to defend this sacred mountain on cultural and environmental grounds. But those challenges failed in the Supreme Court. And so it reaffirmed that we, as indigenous people, don&#8217;t have guaranteed protection for our religious freedom. And that&#8217;s the situation we&#8217;re in now. I&#8217;ve been arrested multiple times trying to stop the excavators up on this mountain, and that seems to be the only redress that we really have.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to turn to one last clip from this film, The Return of Navajo Boy , the film that&#8217;s produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain. Here, we learn about water scarcity and contamination on Diné land.
LORENZO BEGAY : The community water pump is about five miles from my mom&#8217;s house. We all get our drinking water from the same place. There&#8217;s about 200 people who live in this area. It takes about 10 minutes to fill one barrel. My niece Sherri learns to be patient filling the barrels. The government came here a few years ago to check the safety of our drinking water, but they never came back with the results.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s a clip from the film that we have been playing through this segment, The Return of Navajo Boy . Klee Benally, the scarcity of water?
KLEE BENALLY : So, the framing of this section, I understand, is the winners and losers of these struggles. But there are no winners when we destroy Mother Earth. When we destroy the water that we need to drink, then we destroy the air that we need to breathe and the ground that we need to feed ourselves from. And so, right now, the EPA has closed 22 wells that have been determined to have too high of levels of toxic contaminants in them on the Navajo Nation. But many of our people don&#8217;t have running water; they don&#8217;t have electricity. Yet our lands have been exploited. We have coal-fired—three coal-fired power plants that pollute our air. We have these abandoned uranium mines and new mines that are threatening the region. We have fracking, hydraulic fracking, that&#8217;s threatening our land, as well. But this isn&#8217;t just an issue for here. Wherever there&#8217;s an environmental crisis, there&#8217;s a cultural crisis, because we are people of the Earth. This is a social crisis that everybody has some impact of, because when we look at the larger challenges of global warming, global warming, from an indigenous perspective, is just a symptom of how we are out of balance with Mother Earth. So this is a problem that&#8217;s all over.
AMY GOODMAN : Talk about how climate change affects indigenous people.
KLEE BENALLY : Well, we see the threats of displacement of indigenous people from the waters that are rising and depopulating villages that were on islands. We see the threat of the caribou migrations and those impacts. And we see this key resorts that feel like they need to make snow because they don&#8217;t have enough natural snow, and so they desecrate sacred mountains such as this. I mean, the—it&#8217;s not—we are all indigenous to this land, to somewhere, on our mother, the Earth. And so, these impacts impact us all.
AMY GOODMAN : And, Taylor, finally, the effect of climate change on the Colorado River area and the Grand Canyon?
TAYLOR McKINNON: Researchers have projected declines in flow of up to 30 percent in the coming century, owing to climate change and other factors. And so, in a time when we&#8217;re—the Colorado Plateau and the Colorado River Basin and its water users stand to lose the most, it&#8217;s a time for this region also to look very carefully at the energy choices that we&#8217;re making.
AMY GOODMAN : I want to thank you both for being with us. Taylor McKinnon is with the Grand Canyon Trust. Klee, I&#8217;d like you to stay with us for our next segment. Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist, the former lead singer of the punk band Blackfire. We&#8217;re also, when we come back, going to be joined by Alex Soto, who will talk about indigenous organizing on the border. He is a member of the Chicano-indigenous hip-hop duo Shining Soul. Stay with us. AMYGOODMAN: "Song of the Sun" by Klee Benally. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. Yes, we are on the road in Flagstaff, Arizona. Every year, millions of tourists flock here to visit the Grand Canyon, marvel at the spectacularly vast gorge carved out by the Colorado River. This natural wonder is a window into the Southwest region’s geological and Native American past.

Today the Grand Canyon is also the site of an ongoing battle over uranium mining. Last year, a company called Energy Fuels Resources was given federal approval to reopen a mine six miles from the Grand Canyon’s popular South Rim entrance. A coalition of Native and environmental groups have protested the decision, saying uranium mining could strain scarce water sources in the desert area and pose serious health effects.

Members of the Navajo Nations are all too familiar with the dangers posed by uranium mining, because their tribal lands are littered with abandoned mines. From 1944 to 1986, 3.9 million tons of uranium ore were chiseled and blasted from the mountains and plains of this region. Over the years, more than a thousand mines and four processing mills on tribal land closed. However, the mining companies never properly disposed of their radioactive waste piles, leading to a spike in cancer rates and other health ailments.

This is a clip from the documentary The Return of Navajo Boy about Navajo who have suffered health problems due to environmental contamination.

LORENZOBEGAY: My mom and my Uncle Bernie were just little kids when their mom and their grandma both got lung disease.

BERNIECLY: [translated] I remember we lived by the mines. Uranium was in the water we used for washing and drinking. This is how we lived. One day, Mom went to the hospital. Us kids waited all summer for her to come home. Harry Goulding came and told us that Mom died. Grandma started to cry, "My daughter..."

AMYGOODMAN: That’s a clip from the award-winning documentary film, The Return of Navajo Boy, produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain.

Well, for more on the uranium mining in this region and other environmental challenges, we continue our conversation with Taylor McKinnon, director of energy with Grand Canyon Trust, and with Klee Benally, a Diné, or Navajo, activist. He’s the former lead singer of the punk band Blackfire; founder of Outta Your Backpack Mediacollective, which teaches filmmaking to indigenous youth; and a volunteer with Clean Up the Mines!, a nationwide effort to clean up abandoned uranium mines.

Taylor McKinnon, as well as Klee Benally, again, welcome. Klee, talk more about what the Navajo, the Diné people, are facing.

KLEEBENALLY:Yá’át’ééh abíní. And first of all, thank you and welcome to the racist state of Arizona and the slightly racist, slightly less racist city of Flagstaff. We have been challenged with resource colonization in this area for many years. It’s really the battle—the geopolitics here are rooted in racism. They’re rooted in the corporate greed that we continue to face this day. More than 20,000 Diné, or Navajo, people have been forcibly relocated from our homelands because of Peabody Coal’s activities on Black Mesa, and we have an estimated more than 1,000 abandoned uranium mines on our lands. In 2005, the Diné, or Navajo, Nation decided to ban all uranium-mining activities on our lands. But today, we have tribal council representatives who are really just selling our future away and trying to lift this ban. And so we, at this point, are in a situation where there have been no meaningful health studies on the impacts of uranium mining in our community.

AMYGOODMAN: Give us an example of what one of these abandoned mines look like.

KLEEBENALLY: Well, I was actually just in Cameron, about 40 minutes away from here, yesterday with Taylor McKinnon doing a presentation. And just about 50 feet away from the chapter house, which is the local government area in this area, there is an abandoned uranium mine that is a—looks like a hill. I mean, contaminated radioactive dirt looks like regular dirt. It’s an invisible threat. But there were toys. There were—from what I understand, there were signs of children playing in this hill, and there were houses just right the base of this. But one of these rocks, when a Geiger counter was set on it, it went through the roof. And so, these abandoned uranium mines look like the rest of the natural landscape.

AMYGOODMAN: And there are how many?

KLEEBENALLY: There are an estimated over a thousand in our homelands. But there are estimated to be over 10,000 abandoned uranium mines throughout the whole United States, and it’s primarily within 15 Western states. But the EPA has never done a meaningful inventory on these threats that are really a toxic legacy that impacts us to this day. It’s really a slow genocide of the people, not just indigenous people of this region, but it’s estimated to be that there are over 10 million people who are residing within 50 miles of abandoned uranium mines.

AMYGOODMAN: Taylor, what is Grand Canyon Trust doing about this?

TAYLOR McKINNON: We’ve been largely focused on efforts by the uranium industry to develop new mines on public lands. And since the mid-2000s, when the price of uranium spiked, we’ve seen a real resurgence of uranium-mining activity in northern Arizona. So we’ve been—we led the charge to compel the—alongside a number of different tribal and conservation and community partners, to compel the Obama administration to enact a ban on new mining in Grand Canyon’s watersheds. That went into effect in 2012. However, it did not apply to old mines, mines that were built in the 1980s. And we’ve seen federal agencies—the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service—allow three of those mines to reopen without undertaking new public or environmental reviews. They’re relying on their 1980s reviews, and thus effectively ignoring reams of new science about the potential impacts of those mines to groundwater, to aquifers that feed springs in the Grand Canyon, that are critical for wildlife, that are held sacred by Native peoples, and that form all of, except for the Colorado River, the perennial surface water in the Grand Canyon. These are—

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s turn to another clip from the film, The Return of Navajo Boy, the award-winning documentary produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain about the Cly family, Navajo who have suffered health problems due to environmental contamination. Here, we hear more about the impact of uranium mining on the Navajo community, on the Diné people.

DINÉ WOMAN: [translated] We live in the midst of uranium. We walk upon it every day. Our houses are built with it. It’s in our walls.

KERR-McGEE OILINDUSTRIESPROMOTIONALFILM: Royalties from the uranium mines are providing much-needed cash for the Navajo prospector and for the tribe. Many of the Navajo men are employed in the uranium mines, where they are valued as conscientious workers.

LORENZOBEGAY: The mining company didn’t tell our fathers and uncles that uranium could kill them or they would be used to make atomic bombs.

AMYGOODMAN: Again, that’s a clip from The Return of Navajo Boy. Klee, what are families told? What are communities told? I mean, we’re dealing with, one, the abandonment of a thousand uranium mines, but then also the building of more now.

KLEEBENALLY: Well, the EPA has a five-year plan that was initiated to clean up these abandoned uranium mines. But the reality is, is that these mines are not being cleaned up. The EPA is turning these abandoned sites into containment or to waste dumps that are toxic, that are hazardous, that are still leaching contaminants into our waterways, that are still impacting our grazing lands and our sheep and so forth. And we have abandoned uranium mines and threatened new proposed uranium mines in proximity to our sacred sites, which are vital for our way of life, for our cultural identity. So we are being told that—essentially, the message that we are sent is, is that our—the impacts to our health, our well-being and who we are in our sacred lands is not meaningful enough to have serious cleanup.

AMYGOODMAN: How do the rules work, because of the different laws on Native American reservations?

KLEEBENALLY: Well, the cleanup is a slow process. It’s a complex process. And I think that it is challenging in relation to the current law on the rez, but we have to look at the reality that, as I mentioned before, there are more than 10,000 abandoned uranium mines throughout the U.S. There are some areas where the abandoned mines or new proposed mines are located in close proximity to our reservation lands. They’re on public—they’re on private lands, and they leach toxic contaminants. The dust, the toxic particles, blow into our communities. And we have no control. We have no way to regulate that. I mean, for example, in Church Rock, New Mexico, where in 1979 one of the largest toxic spills happened in U.S. history, there’s still nothing that has really been done to clean up. There’s new proposed mines happening outside of our tribal lands, right off the borders. So, this is a very complex issue. There are multiple agencies that are involved. And what we end up seeing happen is, is that our future gets railroaded over in the interests of corporate greed.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you talk briefly about the San Francisco Peaks and what they are, for people who have never heard of them?

KLEEBENALLY: Doko’oo’sliid, or the holy San Francisco Peaks, are holy to more than 13 indigenous nations. They are central for our cultural survival.

AMYGOODMAN: Where are they?

KLEEBENALLY: They’re located just right outside of Flagstaff, and they’re the highest point in northern Arizona. You can see the Grand Canyon from them. You can see just such a beautiful landscape. And they’re vital not only for our cultural practices, but they’re an ecological island that are home to endemic species such as the San Francisco Peaks ragwort, which is only found on the San Francisco Peaks and nowhere else in the world.

AMYGOODMAN: And what’s happening with them?

KLEEBENALLY: Well, right now, we’re—for the past 30 years—really, for the past 20 years, it’s been a heated battle to protect this mountain from resource extraction and development, and not just talking about coal, uranium, oil, natural gases, but recreation as a resource extraction on these sacred lands. The San Francisco Peaks are managed by the United States Forest Service as public land, and currently they lease part of those lands to a ski resort known as Arizona Snowbowl, that is—

AMYGOODMAN: Snowbowl?

KLEEBENALLY: Snowbowl. And they’ve permitted to expand their development into rare alpine forests, clearcutting more than 30,000 trees, many of them old-growth. And the most controversial part is that they’ve entered into a contract with the city of Flagstaff. The politicians of Flagstaff have sold 180 million gallons of treated sewage per year for snow making. And this, right—

AMYGOODMAN: Of sewage?

KLEEBENALLY: Of treated sewage for snow making.

AMYGOODMAN: So this is greywater?

KLEEBENALLY: Well, it’s considered treated sewage, or reclaimed water. And so, in this case, there are harmful contaminants that are not tested or treated for by the EPA that are allowed to be in this wastewater, and it’s being sprayed on this sacred church of ours. Right now, even though we’ve had more than 10 years of legal battles that have gone all the way to the Supreme Court, the situation is that we don’t have guaranteed protections for religious freedom as indigenous people. And Snowbowl has become—in 2011, they became the first ski area in the world to make snow out of 100 percent treated sewage effluent.

AMYGOODMAN: Taylor, is there any legal means to challenge this?

TAYLOR McKINNON: Well, it’s not an issue that Grand Canyon Trust has worked on. I know that the Hopi Tribe has ongoing legal challenges in state court and federal court.

AMYGOODMAN: So, are the Navajo—Klee, are the Navajo and Hopi working together on this?

KLEEBENALLY: We had a coalition of 14 indigenous nations actually working together on this with six environmental groups, that had led the charge to defend this sacred mountain on cultural and environmental grounds. But those challenges failed in the Supreme Court. And so it reaffirmed that we, as indigenous people, don’t have guaranteed protection for our religious freedom. And that’s the situation we’re in now. I’ve been arrested multiple times trying to stop the excavators up on this mountain, and that seems to be the only redress that we really have.

AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to turn to one last clip from this film, The Return of Navajo Boy, the film that’s produced by Jeff Spitz and Bennie Klain. Here, we learn about water scarcity and contamination on Diné land.

LORENZOBEGAY: The community water pump is about five miles from my mom’s house. We all get our drinking water from the same place. There’s about 200 people who live in this area. It takes about 10 minutes to fill one barrel. My niece Sherri learns to be patient filling the barrels. The government came here a few years ago to check the safety of our drinking water, but they never came back with the results.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s a clip from the film that we have been playing through this segment, The Return of Navajo Boy. Klee Benally, the scarcity of water?

KLEEBENALLY: So, the framing of this section, I understand, is the winners and losers of these struggles. But there are no winners when we destroy Mother Earth. When we destroy the water that we need to drink, then we destroy the air that we need to breathe and the ground that we need to feed ourselves from. And so, right now, the EPA has closed 22 wells that have been determined to have too high of levels of toxic contaminants in them on the Navajo Nation. But many of our people don’t have running water; they don’t have electricity. Yet our lands have been exploited. We have coal-fired—three coal-fired power plants that pollute our air. We have these abandoned uranium mines and new mines that are threatening the region. We have fracking, hydraulic fracking, that’s threatening our land, as well. But this isn’t just an issue for here. Wherever there’s an environmental crisis, there’s a cultural crisis, because we are people of the Earth. This is a social crisis that everybody has some impact of, because when we look at the larger challenges of global warming, global warming, from an indigenous perspective, is just a symptom of how we are out of balance with Mother Earth. So this is a problem that’s all over.

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about how climate change affects indigenous people.

KLEEBENALLY: Well, we see the threats of displacement of indigenous people from the waters that are rising and depopulating villages that were on islands. We see the threat of the caribou migrations and those impacts. And we see this key resorts that feel like they need to make snow because they don’t have enough natural snow, and so they desecrate sacred mountains such as this. I mean, the—it’s not—we are all indigenous to this land, to somewhere, on our mother, the Earth. And so, these impacts impact us all.

AMYGOODMAN: And, Taylor, finally, the effect of climate change on the Colorado River area and the Grand Canyon?

TAYLOR McKINNON: Researchers have projected declines in flow of up to 30 percent in the coming century, owing to climate change and other factors. And so, in a time when we’re—the Colorado Plateau and the Colorado River Basin and its water users stand to lose the most, it’s a time for this region also to look very carefully at the energy choices that we’re making.

AMYGOODMAN: I want to thank you both for being with us. Taylor McKinnon is with the Grand Canyon Trust. Klee, I’d like you to stay with us for our next segment. Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist, the former lead singer of the punk band Blackfire. We’re also, when we come back, going to be joined by Alex Soto, who will talk about indigenous organizing on the border. He is a member of the Chicano-indigenous hip-hop duo Shining Soul. Stay with us.

]]>
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 -0400Caught in the Crossfire: U.S.-Mexico Border Militarization Threatens Way of Life for Native Tribehttp://www.democracynow.org/2014/3/14/caught_in_the_crossfire_us_mexico
tag:democracynow.org,2014-03-14:en/story/54f91d AMY GOODMAN : &quot;Papers&quot; by Shining Soul, a hip-hop duo that our next guest is a member of. Yes, this is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman. We&#8217;re on the road in Flagstaff, Arizona, a state known for its controversial crackdown on undocumented immigrants under Governor Jan Brewer, who announced this week she is not running for re-election. President Obama has also deployed thousands of new U.S. Border Patrol agents to Arizona&#8217;s southern border with Mexico.
Well, caught in the middle of this are about 28,000 members of the Tohono O&#8217;odham Nation. Their federally recognized reservation is about the size of the state of Connecticut. And for a 76-mile stretch, it spans both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Many O&#8217;odham must now pass through checkpoints when traveling through their land, and some members living in Mexico are almost completely cut off from their tribe.
Our next guest was part of a protest in 2010 where demonstrators opposed to border militarization and checkpoints occupied the U.S. Border Patrol offices at Tucson&#8217;s Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Alex Soto is a member of the Tohono O&#8217;odham Nation and organizer with O&#8217;odham Solidarity Across Borders. He&#8217;s also a member of the hip-hop duo, Shining Soul.
Staying with us, Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist.
Alex, welcome.
ALEX SOTO : Hello.
AMY GOODMAN : It&#8217;s great to have you here in Flagstaff, quite far, actually, from the border.
ALEX SOTO : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : Talk about the key issues right now.
ALEX SOTO : Well, currently, my community is in the middle of just the current push to militarize the border region. The Tohono O&#8217;odham people are—which translates to &quot;desert people,&quot; are caught in the midst of colonial policies that are now militarizing our lands from just the amount of Border Patrol agents to checkpoints, to drones, to just the overall surveillance of our community. So, right now, you know, our way of life as O&#8217;odham are being affected, you know, from traditional practices to seeing family and friends, and just overall just being affected by the militarization.
AMY GOODMAN : Describe the wall to us.
ALEX SOTO : Well, on our reservation, keep in mind, the border region that you shared, 76 miles, is not necessarily a wall yet. All it is, is vehicle barriers. So, in my lifetime, at one point, you know, early childhood, there was no fence. There was nothing there. So, through my lifetime, I&#8217;ve seen the changes due to the current immigration policies that are acted out by the U.S. government. And now it&#8217;s to the point where we have vehicle barriers. But the current push for comprehensive immigration reform is now pushing towards a Berlin Wall-like scenario in my community right now.
AMY GOODMAN : Describe how you&#8217;ve seen the border militarized over the years of your growing up.
ALEX SOTO : You know, growing up—and I&#8217;m only 28 now—just being young, I was always raised to know that, as O&#8217;odham, you know, the land on both sides of the so-called U.S.-Mexico border is our land. And so, when I was young, there was no border there, other than chicken-wire fence for ranching or, you know, practices within the community. Only until—since the early &#39;80s to the early &#8217;90s, in particular with the passing of NAFTA , did we see the push to then regulate the border due to the level of migrant communities or indigenous people from Mexico now migrating here due to policy, economic policies by the U.S. So, you know, through the &#8217;90s, it has escalated more and more just due to that, into 2001, with 9/11, where it pushed more policies towards militarization. So right now we&#39;re currently in that state, along—more or less because of immigration policy, as well. So, hand in hand, these issues are impacting us that are not necessarily O&#8217;odham issues, but the global context is now pushing that militarization on our land.
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, it&#8217;s so interesting that we&#8217;re talking about immigration issues when you&#8217;re the original people of this land.
ALEX SOTO : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : Talk about the Know Your Rights trainings that you&#8217;re involved in.
ALEX SOTO : I&#8217;m part of a grassroots effort in the community, along with many other young people, who are taking initiative to now know our rights in relation to Border Patrol, because in our community the Border Patrol operates as if—you know, with no accountability. I mean, they—keep in mind, our reservation is not in an urban setting; it&#8217;s in a rural area. So, agents, they pretty much act out, you know, whatever they want. And that being said, community members are in a position where they don&#8217;t know what their rights are. So, my friends, in particular, the collective that I&#8217;ve been involved with, solidarity work, they&#8217;ve been putting that out there as far as what are the dos and don&#8217;ts. And in particular, when it comes down to Border Patrol interactions, they really are only supposed to ask your citizenship. They&#8217;re not supposed to ask where you&#8217;re coming from or who&#8217;s your family or who is this person in the back that looks, you know, in their eyes, illegal and so forth, even though, as you mentioned, we are the first inhabitants of the land. And keep in mind, we&#8217;re all indigenous people, as was mentioned.
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, it&#8217;s interesting you&#8217;re here at Northern Arizona University, which has a large criminal justice department. Students move on from here, many go into Border Patrol. Isn&#8217;t Border Patrol the largest security force in the United States?
ALEX SOTO : From my understanding, they&#8217;re getting up there to that point, because in our community, we have nearby border towns, such as Ajo, such as Casa Grande, where Border Patrol agents are—you know, that the push have been—you know, the escalation of what&#8217;s going on. Small rural towns are becoming just havens for them to now live. You know, there&#8217;s thousands of residents, in particular in Ajo, who now have Border Patrol agents housing there. So, it&#8217;s pretty sad in that regard.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to end by asking both of you about your music as a part of your resistance and your political activism. Talk about Shining Soul.
ALEX SOTO : Shining Soul is myself and my other colleague, who&#8217;s from South Phoenix, who&#8217;s a Chicano, Franco Habre, aka The Bronze Candidate. My hip-hop project is called Shining Soul, so together we&#8217;re a duo. You know, we rap. We make our beats. And with our music, we&#8217;re able to express what&#8217;s happening in our communities, you know, in the spirit of Public Enemy, in the spirit of NWA , to let not just our communities know, but the outside world, that these issues are affecting us, but it&#8217;s not just an indigenous issue or a Chicano issue or, you know, any—it&#8217;s everybody&#8217;s issue. So, from music, you know, dope beats and dope rhymes, as they say, you know, as an emcee, in the spirit of hip-hop&#8217;s—you know, in its early starts, you know, I spread that message in that regard, including his own regard is through his music, as well.
AMY GOODMAN : Klee, talk about your music in Blackfire.
KLEE BENALLY : Well, music is a tool for social transformation and change. I mean, in an era where we see capitalism as the enemy of Mother Earth, and indigenous people are tokenized, and we are—continue to face the ongoing genocide of our people—because, I mean, you asked what is the impact of global warming on indigenous people. It is genocide. I mean, the resource extraction on our lands is the result that you see with the symptoms of global warming. And so, music, for me, is an opportunity, a powerful opportunity, to get that message out there and to let people know that we need hope, but we need action. We have to meet that, match that.
AMY GOODMAN : And, Klee, also talk about Outta Your Backpack Media collective.
KLEE BENALLY : Outta Your Backpack Media was started in 2004 as a response to the need for media justice in indigenous communities. So what we do is we offer free workshops and resource kits for indigenous youth and empower them to be able to tell their own stories, because we know, and as you know, corporate media is not going to do the job for us. We need to do it ourselves.
AMY GOODMAN : And who are you training?
KLEE BENALLY : I work with indigenous youth, primarily high school ages, and we&#8217;re a collective. We&#8217;re all volunteer. And what we do is we train youth to become mentors themselves, to participate and educate other youth. So, really, it&#8217;s a spreading, it&#8217;s a growing movement. It&#8217;s connected to the music that Alex is doing; it&#8217;s connected to my music. And really, there is a strong upsurgence and uprising of indigenous people, not just with Idle No More, because we&#8217;ve never been idle. We are still part of this struggle. We&#8217;re still here.
AMY GOODMAN : Idle No More being the indigenous movement in Canada.
KLEE BENALLY : Yeah, and we&#8217;ve never been idle. My elders never gave up. When the U.S. government forces were coming to take their land up in Big Mountain and Black Mesa, which I believe you&#8217;ve been there—
AMY GOODMAN : My first radio documentary in 1985 was called A Thumbprint on Mother Earth , and, yes, I came out here to Flagstaff, went to Big Mountain and looked at the plight of the Diné and Hopi people. Often it was cast as a battle between these two tribes. But, in fact, when you came here and looked, you saw Peabody Coal behind the whole thing.
KLEE BENALLY : And that&#8217;s the connection to global warming. I mean, as long as people are tied up in these unsustainable lifestyles and continue down this destructive path that fuels this war against our mother, the Earth, then we&#8217;re going to have this conflict. And that&#8217;s—the resistance is still going on today. People are still on the land. They are still staying strong, carrying on our ways of life.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;ll link to that documentary, A Thumbprint on Mother Earth , and also to the work of our guests. Alex Soto, thanks so much for being with us, O&#8217;odham Solidarity Across Borders, and Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist. AMYGOODMAN: "Papers" by Shining Soul, a hip-hop duo that our next guest is a member of. Yes, this is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman. We’re on the road in Flagstaff, Arizona, a state known for its controversial crackdown on undocumented immigrants under Governor Jan Brewer, who announced this week she is not running for re-election. President Obama has also deployed thousands of new U.S. Border Patrol agents to Arizona’s southern border with Mexico.

Well, caught in the middle of this are about 28,000 members of the Tohono O’odham Nation. Their federally recognized reservation is about the size of the state of Connecticut. And for a 76-mile stretch, it spans both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Many O’odham must now pass through checkpoints when traveling through their land, and some members living in Mexico are almost completely cut off from their tribe.

Our next guest was part of a protest in 2010 where demonstrators opposed to border militarization and checkpoints occupied the U.S. Border Patrol offices at Tucson’s Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. Alex Soto is a member of the Tohono O’odham Nation and organizer with O’odham Solidarity Across Borders. He’s also a member of the hip-hop duo, Shining Soul.

Staying with us, Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist.

Alex, welcome.

ALEXSOTO: Hello.

AMYGOODMAN: It’s great to have you here in Flagstaff, quite far, actually, from the border.

ALEXSOTO: Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about the key issues right now.

ALEXSOTO: Well, currently, my community is in the middle of just the current push to militarize the border region. The Tohono O’odham people are—which translates to "desert people," are caught in the midst of colonial policies that are now militarizing our lands from just the amount of Border Patrol agents to checkpoints, to drones, to just the overall surveillance of our community. So, right now, you know, our way of life as O’odham are being affected, you know, from traditional practices to seeing family and friends, and just overall just being affected by the militarization.

AMYGOODMAN: Describe the wall to us.

ALEXSOTO: Well, on our reservation, keep in mind, the border region that you shared, 76 miles, is not necessarily a wall yet. All it is, is vehicle barriers. So, in my lifetime, at one point, you know, early childhood, there was no fence. There was nothing there. So, through my lifetime, I’ve seen the changes due to the current immigration policies that are acted out by the U.S. government. And now it’s to the point where we have vehicle barriers. But the current push for comprehensive immigration reform is now pushing towards a Berlin Wall-like scenario in my community right now.

AMYGOODMAN: Describe how you’ve seen the border militarized over the years of your growing up.

ALEXSOTO: You know, growing up—and I’m only 28 now—just being young, I was always raised to know that, as O’odham, you know, the land on both sides of the so-called U.S.-Mexico border is our land. And so, when I was young, there was no border there, other than chicken-wire fence for ranching or, you know, practices within the community. Only until—since the early '80s to the early ’90s, in particular with the passing of NAFTA, did we see the push to then regulate the border due to the level of migrant communities or indigenous people from Mexico now migrating here due to policy, economic policies by the U.S. So, you know, through the ’90s, it has escalated more and more just due to that, into 2001, with 9/11, where it pushed more policies towards militarization. So right now we're currently in that state, along—more or less because of immigration policy, as well. So, hand in hand, these issues are impacting us that are not necessarily O’odham issues, but the global context is now pushing that militarization on our land.

AMYGOODMAN: I mean, it’s so interesting that we’re talking about immigration issues when you’re the original people of this land.

ALEXSOTO: I’m part of a grassroots effort in the community, along with many other young people, who are taking initiative to now know our rights in relation to Border Patrol, because in our community the Border Patrol operates as if—you know, with no accountability. I mean, they—keep in mind, our reservation is not in an urban setting; it’s in a rural area. So, agents, they pretty much act out, you know, whatever they want. And that being said, community members are in a position where they don’t know what their rights are. So, my friends, in particular, the collective that I’ve been involved with, solidarity work, they’ve been putting that out there as far as what are the dos and don’ts. And in particular, when it comes down to Border Patrol interactions, they really are only supposed to ask your citizenship. They’re not supposed to ask where you’re coming from or who’s your family or who is this person in the back that looks, you know, in their eyes, illegal and so forth, even though, as you mentioned, we are the first inhabitants of the land. And keep in mind, we’re all indigenous people, as was mentioned.

AMYGOODMAN: I mean, it’s interesting you’re here at Northern Arizona University, which has a large criminal justice department. Students move on from here, many go into Border Patrol. Isn’t Border Patrol the largest security force in the United States?

ALEXSOTO: From my understanding, they’re getting up there to that point, because in our community, we have nearby border towns, such as Ajo, such as Casa Grande, where Border Patrol agents are—you know, that the push have been—you know, the escalation of what’s going on. Small rural towns are becoming just havens for them to now live. You know, there’s thousands of residents, in particular in Ajo, who now have Border Patrol agents housing there. So, it’s pretty sad in that regard.

AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to end by asking both of you about your music as a part of your resistance and your political activism. Talk about Shining Soul.

ALEXSOTO: Shining Soul is myself and my other colleague, who’s from South Phoenix, who’s a Chicano, Franco Habre, aka The Bronze Candidate. My hip-hop project is called Shining Soul, so together we’re a duo. You know, we rap. We make our beats. And with our music, we’re able to express what’s happening in our communities, you know, in the spirit of Public Enemy, in the spirit of NWA, to let not just our communities know, but the outside world, that these issues are affecting us, but it’s not just an indigenous issue or a Chicano issue or, you know, any—it’s everybody’s issue. So, from music, you know, dope beats and dope rhymes, as they say, you know, as an emcee, in the spirit of hip-hop’s—you know, in its early starts, you know, I spread that message in that regard, including his own regard is through his music, as well.

AMYGOODMAN: Klee, talk about your music in Blackfire.

KLEEBENALLY: Well, music is a tool for social transformation and change. I mean, in an era where we see capitalism as the enemy of Mother Earth, and indigenous people are tokenized, and we are—continue to face the ongoing genocide of our people—because, I mean, you asked what is the impact of global warming on indigenous people. It is genocide. I mean, the resource extraction on our lands is the result that you see with the symptoms of global warming. And so, music, for me, is an opportunity, a powerful opportunity, to get that message out there and to let people know that we need hope, but we need action. We have to meet that, match that.

KLEEBENALLY: Outta Your Backpack Media was started in 2004 as a response to the need for media justice in indigenous communities. So what we do is we offer free workshops and resource kits for indigenous youth and empower them to be able to tell their own stories, because we know, and as you know, corporate media is not going to do the job for us. We need to do it ourselves.

AMYGOODMAN: And who are you training?

KLEEBENALLY: I work with indigenous youth, primarily high school ages, and we’re a collective. We’re all volunteer. And what we do is we train youth to become mentors themselves, to participate and educate other youth. So, really, it’s a spreading, it’s a growing movement. It’s connected to the music that Alex is doing; it’s connected to my music. And really, there is a strong upsurgence and uprising of indigenous people, not just with Idle No More, because we’ve never been idle. We are still part of this struggle. We’re still here.

AMYGOODMAN: Idle No More being the indigenous movement in Canada.

KLEEBENALLY: Yeah, and we’ve never been idle. My elders never gave up. When the U.S. government forces were coming to take their land up in Big Mountain and Black Mesa, which I believe you’ve been there—

AMYGOODMAN: My first radio documentary in 1985 was called A Thumbprint on Mother Earth, and, yes, I came out here to Flagstaff, went to Big Mountain and looked at the plight of the Diné and Hopi people. Often it was cast as a battle between these two tribes. But, in fact, when you came here and looked, you saw Peabody Coal behind the whole thing.

KLEEBENALLY: And that’s the connection to global warming. I mean, as long as people are tied up in these unsustainable lifestyles and continue down this destructive path that fuels this war against our mother, the Earth, then we’re going to have this conflict. And that’s—the resistance is still going on today. People are still on the land. They are still staying strong, carrying on our ways of life.

AMYGOODMAN: We’ll link to that documentary, A Thumbprint on Mother Earth, and also to the work of our guests. Alex Soto, thanks so much for being with us, O’odham Solidarity Across Borders, and Klee Benally, Diné, Navajo, activist.

]]>
Fri, 14 Mar 2014 00:00:00 -0400Change the Mascot: Pressure Grows for NFL Team to Drop Redskins Name and Logo as Thousands Protesthttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/11/8/change_the_mascot_pressure_grows_for
tag:democracynow.org,2013-11-08:en/story/7f9b96 JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For decades, members of many indigenous tribes have called on the Washington Redskins football team to change its name, which is based on a racial slur. Now the pressure has reached new heights. Thursday night, nearly a thousand Native Americans and their allies protested outside the Metrodome Stadium in Minneapolis as the team played the Minnesota Vikings. Earlier in the day, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton suggested members of Congress put pressure on the team&#8217;s owners by boycotting its games. This came after Washington, D.C., lawmakers voted Tuesday to call on the team to change the name.
AMY GOODMAN : Meanwhile, Minneapolis&#8217;s mayor released a statement Thursday saying the name disrespects indigenous people, and this week six members of the Minneapolis City Council sent a letter to the team&#8217;s owner and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell calling the nickname and team mascot racist. This groundswell of support comes as Bob Costas of NBC Sports spoke about the topic during half-time as he anchored a game when Washington&#8217;s team played last month.
BOB COSTAS : Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor rather than demean. They&#8217;re pretty much the same as Vikings, Patriots or even Cowboys. And names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas, while potentially more problematic, can still be OK, provided the symbols are appropriately respectful, which is where the Cleveland Indians, with the combination of their name and Chief Wahoo logo, have sometimes run into trouble.
A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians. The St. John&#8217;s Redmen have become the Red Storm. And the Miami of Ohio Redskins—that&#8217;s right, Redskins—are now the Redhawks. Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation&#8217;s capital has maintained its name.
But think for a moment about the term &quot;Redskins&quot; and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, Redskins can&#8217;t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It&#8217;s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It&#8217;s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn&#8217;t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was NBC Sports anchor Bob Costas speaking at half-time during a game last month in which Washington&#8217;s team played. This week, the Minnesota American Indian Movement took legal action to call on the state to refuse funding for the new Vikings Stadium if the word &quot;Redskins&quot; will be used there. Despite the massive outcry, the team&#8217;s owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change its name. During an interview with USA Today , Snyder said, quote, &quot;We will never change the name of the team. ... It&#8217;s that simple. NEVER . You can use caps.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Well, for more, we go to Minneapolis, where we&#8217;re joined by Clyde Bellecourt, co-founder, director of the American Indian Movement, known as AIM . He was a major figure in the occupation of Wounded Knee 40 years ago in 1973. Bellecourt is also organizer with the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media. AIM helped organize last night&#8217;s protest as part of the Change the Mascot movement.
And here in New York, we&#8217;re joined by Dave Zirin, sports columnist for The Nation magazine and host of Edge of Sports Radio on SiriusXM. One of his latest pieces is &quot;Dump the &#39;Redskins&#39; Slur!&quot; He&#8217;s also written about &quot;The NFL&#8217;s Bully Problem,&quot; which we&#8217;ll talk about in a moment.
First to Clyde Bellecourt, tell us what happened last night in Minneapolis.
CLYDE BELLECOURT : First of all, my traditional name, my spirit name given to me by the creator, is Nee-gon-we-way-we-dun, or the Thunder Before the Storm. But when I was born 77 years ago, I was not allowed—no Indian people were allowed—to have an Indian name. We couldn&#8217;t pray, sing, dance, carry on our traditional spiritual way of life.
Last night, as one of the monumental walk took place, from the heart of the Indian community in South Minneapolis, one of the largest concentrated Indian communities in America, over a thousand mostly Native people, some of them in their full regalia to show the beauty of our culture, went along with us, marched on the stadium, carrying banners that said, &quot;The &#39;R&#39; word is no different than the &#39;N&#39; word.&quot; &quot;The &#39;R&#39; word is no different than the &#39;N&#39; word.&quot; Little Red Sambo has to go. Little Black Sambo is gone, and now it&#8217;s time for Little Red Sambo to go.
It&#8217;s not really the names. It&#8217;s not just the names. It&#8217;s the behavior created when they get a little bit behind, you know, the Washington team or Cleveland, they start hollering &quot;Scalp them f—in&#8217; Twins!&quot; &quot;Scalp the Vikings! Massacre them!&quot; And our children grab our arms—our nephews and nieces, our sons and daughters. &quot;Come on, Dad. Come, Grandpa. Let&#8217;s go home. Let&#8217;s go home. Let&#8217;s get out of here.&quot; It has a tremendous psychological effect on Indian people.
And if Dan Snyder knew where the word &quot;Redskin&quot; comes, truly understood it, I think he would make that change—a man knowing what a holocaust is and what genocide is. Goes all the way back to Governor Kalb [ phon. ] in Newfoundland in the 1500s. When they started their Western expansion, the Indian people were in their way, so he put out a bounty on Indian people. It was perfectly legal to kill Indians then. And they were bringing them in by the wagon loads. Women, who didn&#8217;t have any rights back then, and the church started speaking out about it. It became to cumbersome financially to bury them. So he said, to prove that you killed an Indian, now that&#8217;s all you had to do was bring in their skull. And they said they were bringing them in by gunny sacks, bushel baskets, bringing wagon loads to collect their bounties. The women spoke out again, put pressure, pressure on the governor, Kalb. And he said, &quot;To prove you that you kill an Indian, that&#8217;s all you have to do now is bring in a lock of their hair.&quot; So when they cut that scalp off the Indian people&#8217;s head, now they could go after little children, babies, and collect more money. That blood would run down their face, that red blood, and down their bodies. They&#8217;d put those pouches, the pouches on their leg, their scalps, and come in and collect their bounty. Henceforth, there&#8217;s been over 60 tribes that have been totally erased from the face of the Earth, no longer exist. And Dan Snyder should understand that, being Jewish himself. There are Jewish people still here, but there are tribes that have been totally decimated. And that&#8217;s where the word &quot;Redskin&quot; comes from. And we&#8217;e demanding that that change. The &quot;R&quot; word is no different than the &quot;N&quot; word, and Little Red Sambo has to go.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Dave, I wanted to ask you about the almost belligerent response of Dan Snyder to these calls for the change of the name. He tries—he claims that it&#8217;s honoring the tradition of the Redskins, that there were several Native Americans on the original first Redskins team and a Native American coach. But could you talk about his response—his particularly strong opposition to even considering a name change?
DAVE ZIRIN : Absolutely. First of all, Dan Snyder has been teaching a master class in anti-public relations. And he is one of the reasons why this has become such a big issue over the last six months. I mean, folks like Clyde Bellecourt, folks in the American Indian Movement have been working on this issue for decades, and yet in the last six months we&#8217;ve seen this massive sea change where all of a sudden folks like Bob Costas, Sports Illustrated &#39;s Peter King, USA Today &#39;s Christine Brennan are no longer using the word. It&#8217;s an amazing thing to have happen, to see this kind of progress. And Dan Snyder is one of three reasons why. I mean, Dan Snyder, when—every time he speaks about this issue, folks who want to change the name, they get more committed to doing it, and folks who would be likely to stand with Dan Snyder start to think to themselves, &quot;Do I really want to stand with this guy?&quot;
But there are a couple of other reasons, too, why we&#8217;ve seen such this—a tremendous sea change in activism around this. The first is the active and confident intervention of indigenous voices. I mean, starting with the Idle No More movement in Canada, I mean, you really have seen this upsurge in indigenous activism. And in this issue, in particular, the Oneida Nation in upstate New York, AIM , the Choctaw tribe, they have been very aggressive in saying, &quot;Wait a minute, this has to go.&quot;
The second reason is that the team itself is really relevant for the first time in 20 years. This name has been protected by the football team&#8217;s own mediocrity for decades. And yet they&#8217;ve been better recently. They have a star quarterback named Robert Griffin III . And that has turned the name into a national discussion.
And then the last reason is what you just said. Dan Snyder, every time he opens his mouth, it&#8217;s like King Midas in reverse: Everything he touches turns to whatever we would say on polite television is the opposite of gold.
AMY GOODMAN : This is president Obama weighing in on whether the Washington football team should change its name.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA : Obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. You know, I don&#8217;t think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I&#8217;ve got to say, if I were the owner of the team, and I knew that there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I&#8217;d think—I&#8217;d think about changing it.
AMY GOODMAN : So there is President Obama calling for changing it. And there&#8217;s a call for broadcasters not to use the name. I think Mother Jones talked about &quot;red-acted.&quot; What else, Dave Zirin, on those team names?
DAVE ZIRIN : Oh, well, it&#8217;s really interesting, because one of the things that you&#8217;ve seen in the last few months is the presence of Native American voices. And one of the things that has done is it&#8217;s changed the polling on this dramatically, because one of the sort of—it&#8217;s like the last refuge of the scoundrel, of people who would say that this word is not racist and that the team name should be defended, is they say, &quot;Look at the polling: 90 percent of the country says the name is fine; over 80 percent of Native Americans say that they are fine with the name.&quot; And they point to old polls to point this out. But the most recent poll by SurveyUSA shows that the more people think about this, the more they&#8217;re actually confronted with this, the more they&#8217;re confronted with the fact that this word is no different for Native Americans than the &quot;N&quot; word, just like Clyde Bellecourt said, the more people say, &quot;You know what? Maybe this should change.&quot; And in the recent SurveyUSA poll, 23 percent of residents in the D.C. metro area say they would be more likely to root for the team if the team name changed. That is a colossal sea change.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Clyde Bellecourt, I&#8217;d like to ask you, because the Washington team is in Washington, D.C., and so many senators and congressmen like to go to the games, as well as Washington lobbyists, are you now seeking to put pressure on the members of Congress to take stands themselves on this issue?
CLYDE BELLECOURT : We&#8217;re putting pressure on the whole world about these racist slurs and this continued cultural genocidal policies of this government. Let&#8217;s not forget, there&#8217;s over 2,000 high schools, colleges and universities throughout America have changed. They said they would never change, never change their name, just like Dan Snyder, but they have changed. Every single one of them have changed. And so will—so will happen to this Washington team.
Take this for an example. What if I had a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars, and I—and it&#8217;s something I wouldn&#8217;t do, but what if I created a franchise, call it the White Earth—my reservation, the White Earth Chippewa reservation—I call it the White Earth Saints, and I had a mascot dressed up like the pope in full regalia, you know, carrying a crucifix in one hand, holy water in the other hand? And every time there&#8217;s a touchdown made, I sprinkle holy water on all the drunks. Instead of slapping their mouth and making some ridiculous sound they call the &quot;war whoop,&quot; maybe the crowd can wave crucifixes up and down and sing the &quot;Ave Maria&quot; or &quot;The Lord&#8217;s Prayer&quot;? We all know that. What do you think—how long do you think that would last? How long do you think, if they call them the Sambos or use the &quot;N&quot; word, again, it would last? Hundreds, thousands, millions of black people and people of color would be marching on that team, and that change would take place overnight.
They never want to put themselves in our shoes once. What effect does it have on our children? Our children don&#8217;t even want to go to a ball game. They don&#8217;t want to even go to football, they don&#8217;t want to go to hockey, when the people, the drunks, they get drunk, and they—Vikings got horns on their heads and gold hair, and half of their face is purple, the other side yellow or gold, and they start saying, &quot;Massacre them Indians! Massacre them Redskins! Scalp &#8217;em!&quot; and all these slurs. And the children have to—want to get out of there. Just think what effect that would have to have the same effect on your children with the use of the pope or use of mascots like that—something we would never, ever do. What effect would that have on the Christian communities of America?
AMY GOODMAN : Clyde Bellecourt—
CLYDE BELLECOURT : How would they deal with it?
AMY GOODMAN : —what about those other names? For example, like, oh, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Syracuse Chiefs.
CLYDE BELLECOURT : No, we don&#8217;t have—we don&#8217;t have teeth from one ear to the other ear. And we don&#8217;t have mohawks. We don&#8217;t paint our face red. We don&#8217;t know what war paint is. There&#8217;s no such thing as war paint in the Indian community. That&#8217;s this old John Wayne, George Armstrong frontier mentality about Indian people. George Armstrong is gone. Custer, George Custer, Armstrong Custer, he&#8217;s gone. John Wayne is dead. Little Black Sambo is gone. And I think it&#8217;s time for America to let it go.
AMY GOODMAN : And Dave?
DAVE ZIRIN : Yeah, just Dan Snyder always talks about the history of the name, but he never explains what that history is in the context of the team. And listeners who are new to this issue need to know that the word &quot;Redskins&quot; is a legacy of Jim Crow. It&#8217;s a legacy of the team&#8217;s original owner, George Preston Marshall, who was an arch-segregationist. The team was the last team to integrate in the NFL . When George Preston Marshall passed away in 1969, he put in his will that no money from his foundation could go to any organization that promoted integration. This is 1969 where he&#8217;s putting this in his will. That&#8217;s the legacy of this team name. It&#8217;s related to George Preston Marshall&#8217;s love of minstrelsy and die-hard belief in white supremacy. And for that and for no other reason, it really does belong at most in a museum, and probably just in the dustbin of history. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: For decades, members of many indigenous tribes have called on the Washington Redskins football team to change its name, which is based on a racial slur. Now the pressure has reached new heights. Thursday night, nearly a thousand Native Americans and their allies protested outside the Metrodome Stadium in Minneapolis as the team played the Minnesota Vikings. Earlier in the day, Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton suggested members of Congress put pressure on the team’s owners by boycotting its games. This came after Washington, D.C., lawmakers voted Tuesday to call on the team to change the name.

AMYGOODMAN: Meanwhile, Minneapolis’s mayor released a statement Thursday saying the name disrespects indigenous people, and this week six members of the Minneapolis City Council sent a letter to the team’s owner and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell calling the nickname and team mascot racist. This groundswell of support comes as Bob Costas of NBC Sports spoke about the topic during half-time as he anchored a game when Washington’s team played last month.

BOBCOSTAS: Objections to names like Braves, Chiefs, Warriors and the like strike many of us as political correctness run amok. These nicknames honor rather than demean. They’re pretty much the same as Vikings, Patriots or even Cowboys. And names like Blackhawks, Seminoles and Chippewas, while potentially more problematic, can still be OK, provided the symbols are appropriately respectful, which is where the Cleveland Indians, with the combination of their name and Chief Wahoo logo, have sometimes run into trouble.

A number of teams, mostly in the college ranks, have changed their names in response to objections. The Stanford Cardinal and the Dartmouth Big Green were each once the Indians. The St. John’s Redmen have become the Red Storm. And the Miami of Ohio Redskins—that’s right, Redskins—are now the Redhawks. Still, the NFL franchise that represents the nation’s capital has maintained its name.

But think for a moment about the term "Redskins" and how it truly differs from all the others. Ask yourself what the equivalent would be if directed toward African Americans, Hispanics, Asians or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, Redskins can’t possibly honor a heritage or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term. It’s an insult, a slur, no matter how benign the present-day intent. It’s fair to say that for a long time now, and certainly in 2013, no offense has been intended. But if you take a step back, isn’t it clear to see how offense might legitimately be taken?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: That was NBC Sports anchor Bob Costas speaking at half-time during a game last month in which Washington’s team played. This week, the Minnesota American Indian Movement took legal action to call on the state to refuse funding for the new Vikings Stadium if the word "Redskins" will be used there. Despite the massive outcry, the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, has refused to change its name. During an interview with USA Today, Snyder said, quote, "We will never change the name of the team. ... It’s that simple. NEVER. You can use caps."

AMYGOODMAN: Well, for more, we go to Minneapolis, where we’re joined by Clyde Bellecourt, co-founder, director of the American Indian Movement, known as AIM. He was a major figure in the occupation of Wounded Knee 40 years ago in 1973. Bellecourt is also organizer with the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and the Media. AIM helped organize last night’s protest as part of the Change the Mascot movement.

And here in New York, we’re joined by Dave Zirin, sports columnist for The Nation magazine and host of Edge of Sports Radio on SiriusXM. One of his latest pieces is "Dump the 'Redskins' Slur!" He’s also written about "The NFL’s Bully Problem," which we’ll talk about in a moment.

First to Clyde Bellecourt, tell us what happened last night in Minneapolis.

CLYDEBELLECOURT: First of all, my traditional name, my spirit name given to me by the creator, is Nee-gon-we-way-we-dun, or the Thunder Before the Storm. But when I was born 77 years ago, I was not allowed—no Indian people were allowed—to have an Indian name. We couldn’t pray, sing, dance, carry on our traditional spiritual way of life.

Last night, as one of the monumental walk took place, from the heart of the Indian community in South Minneapolis, one of the largest concentrated Indian communities in America, over a thousand mostly Native people, some of them in their full regalia to show the beauty of our culture, went along with us, marched on the stadium, carrying banners that said, "The 'R' word is no different than the 'N' word." "The 'R' word is no different than the 'N' word." Little Red Sambo has to go. Little Black Sambo is gone, and now it’s time for Little Red Sambo to go.

It’s not really the names. It’s not just the names. It’s the behavior created when they get a little bit behind, you know, the Washington team or Cleveland, they start hollering "Scalp them f—in’ Twins!" "Scalp the Vikings! Massacre them!" And our children grab our arms—our nephews and nieces, our sons and daughters. "Come on, Dad. Come, Grandpa. Let’s go home. Let’s go home. Let’s get out of here." It has a tremendous psychological effect on Indian people.

And if Dan Snyder knew where the word "Redskin" comes, truly understood it, I think he would make that change—a man knowing what a holocaust is and what genocide is. Goes all the way back to Governor Kalb [ phon. ] in Newfoundland in the 1500s. When they started their Western expansion, the Indian people were in their way, so he put out a bounty on Indian people. It was perfectly legal to kill Indians then. And they were bringing them in by the wagon loads. Women, who didn’t have any rights back then, and the church started speaking out about it. It became to cumbersome financially to bury them. So he said, to prove that you killed an Indian, now that’s all you had to do was bring in their skull. And they said they were bringing them in by gunny sacks, bushel baskets, bringing wagon loads to collect their bounties. The women spoke out again, put pressure, pressure on the governor, Kalb. And he said, "To prove you that you kill an Indian, that’s all you have to do now is bring in a lock of their hair." So when they cut that scalp off the Indian people’s head, now they could go after little children, babies, and collect more money. That blood would run down their face, that red blood, and down their bodies. They’d put those pouches, the pouches on their leg, their scalps, and come in and collect their bounty. Henceforth, there’s been over 60 tribes that have been totally erased from the face of the Earth, no longer exist. And Dan Snyder should understand that, being Jewish himself. There are Jewish people still here, but there are tribes that have been totally decimated. And that’s where the word "Redskin" comes from. And we’e demanding that that change. The "R" word is no different than the "N" word, and Little Red Sambo has to go.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Dave, I wanted to ask you about the almost belligerent response of Dan Snyder to these calls for the change of the name. He tries—he claims that it’s honoring the tradition of the Redskins, that there were several Native Americans on the original first Redskins team and a Native American coach. But could you talk about his response—his particularly strong opposition to even considering a name change?

DAVEZIRIN: Absolutely. First of all, Dan Snyder has been teaching a master class in anti-public relations. And he is one of the reasons why this has become such a big issue over the last six months. I mean, folks like Clyde Bellecourt, folks in the American Indian Movement have been working on this issue for decades, and yet in the last six months we’ve seen this massive sea change where all of a sudden folks like Bob Costas, Sports Illustrated's Peter King, USA Today's Christine Brennan are no longer using the word. It’s an amazing thing to have happen, to see this kind of progress. And Dan Snyder is one of three reasons why. I mean, Dan Snyder, when—every time he speaks about this issue, folks who want to change the name, they get more committed to doing it, and folks who would be likely to stand with Dan Snyder start to think to themselves, "Do I really want to stand with this guy?"

But there are a couple of other reasons, too, why we’ve seen such this—a tremendous sea change in activism around this. The first is the active and confident intervention of indigenous voices. I mean, starting with the Idle No More movement in Canada, I mean, you really have seen this upsurge in indigenous activism. And in this issue, in particular, the Oneida Nation in upstate New York, AIM, the Choctaw tribe, they have been very aggressive in saying, "Wait a minute, this has to go."

The second reason is that the team itself is really relevant for the first time in 20 years. This name has been protected by the football team’s own mediocrity for decades. And yet they’ve been better recently. They have a star quarterback named Robert Griffin III. And that has turned the name into a national discussion.

And then the last reason is what you just said. Dan Snyder, every time he opens his mouth, it’s like King Midas in reverse: Everything he touches turns to whatever we would say on polite television is the opposite of gold.

AMYGOODMAN: This is president Obama weighing in on whether the Washington football team should change its name.

PRESIDENTBARACKOBAMA: Obviously, people get pretty attached to team names, mascots. You know, I don’t think there are any Redskins fans that mean offense. I’ve got to say, if I were the owner of the team, and I knew that there was a name of my team, even if it had a storied history, that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think—I’d think about changing it.

AMYGOODMAN: So there is President Obama calling for changing it. And there’s a call for broadcasters not to use the name. I think Mother Jones talked about "red-acted." What else, Dave Zirin, on those team names?

DAVEZIRIN: Oh, well, it’s really interesting, because one of the things that you’ve seen in the last few months is the presence of Native American voices. And one of the things that has done is it’s changed the polling on this dramatically, because one of the sort of—it’s like the last refuge of the scoundrel, of people who would say that this word is not racist and that the team name should be defended, is they say, "Look at the polling: 90 percent of the country says the name is fine; over 80 percent of Native Americans say that they are fine with the name." And they point to old polls to point this out. But the most recent poll by SurveyUSA shows that the more people think about this, the more they’re actually confronted with this, the more they’re confronted with the fact that this word is no different for Native Americans than the "N" word, just like Clyde Bellecourt said, the more people say, "You know what? Maybe this should change." And in the recent SurveyUSA poll, 23 percent of residents in the D.C. metro area say they would be more likely to root for the team if the team name changed. That is a colossal sea change.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Clyde Bellecourt, I’d like to ask you, because the Washington team is in Washington, D.C., and so many senators and congressmen like to go to the games, as well as Washington lobbyists, are you now seeking to put pressure on the members of Congress to take stands themselves on this issue?

CLYDEBELLECOURT: We’re putting pressure on the whole world about these racist slurs and this continued cultural genocidal policies of this government. Let’s not forget, there’s over 2,000 high schools, colleges and universities throughout America have changed. They said they would never change, never change their name, just like Dan Snyder, but they have changed. Every single one of them have changed. And so will—so will happen to this Washington team.

Take this for an example. What if I had a lot of money, millions and millions of dollars, and I—and it’s something I wouldn’t do, but what if I created a franchise, call it the White Earth—my reservation, the White Earth Chippewa reservation—I call it the White Earth Saints, and I had a mascot dressed up like the pope in full regalia, you know, carrying a crucifix in one hand, holy water in the other hand? And every time there’s a touchdown made, I sprinkle holy water on all the drunks. Instead of slapping their mouth and making some ridiculous sound they call the "war whoop," maybe the crowd can wave crucifixes up and down and sing the "Ave Maria" or "The Lord’s Prayer"? We all know that. What do you think—how long do you think that would last? How long do you think, if they call them the Sambos or use the "N" word, again, it would last? Hundreds, thousands, millions of black people and people of color would be marching on that team, and that change would take place overnight.

They never want to put themselves in our shoes once. What effect does it have on our children? Our children don’t even want to go to a ball game. They don’t want to even go to football, they don’t want to go to hockey, when the people, the drunks, they get drunk, and they—Vikings got horns on their heads and gold hair, and half of their face is purple, the other side yellow or gold, and they start saying, "Massacre them Indians! Massacre them Redskins! Scalp ’em!" and all these slurs. And the children have to—want to get out of there. Just think what effect that would have to have the same effect on your children with the use of the pope or use of mascots like that—something we would never, ever do. What effect would that have on the Christian communities of America?

AMYGOODMAN: Clyde Bellecourt—

CLYDEBELLECOURT: How would they deal with it?

AMYGOODMAN: —what about those other names? For example, like, oh, the Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, the Syracuse Chiefs.

CLYDEBELLECOURT: No, we don’t have—we don’t have teeth from one ear to the other ear. And we don’t have mohawks. We don’t paint our face red. We don’t know what war paint is. There’s no such thing as war paint in the Indian community. That’s this old John Wayne, George Armstrong frontier mentality about Indian people. George Armstrong is gone. Custer, George Custer, Armstrong Custer, he’s gone. John Wayne is dead. Little Black Sambo is gone. And I think it’s time for America to let it go.

AMYGOODMAN: And Dave?

DAVEZIRIN: Yeah, just Dan Snyder always talks about the history of the name, but he never explains what that history is in the context of the team. And listeners who are new to this issue need to know that the word "Redskins" is a legacy of Jim Crow. It’s a legacy of the team’s original owner, George Preston Marshall, who was an arch-segregationist. The team was the last team to integrate in the NFL. When George Preston Marshall passed away in 1969, he put in his will that no money from his foundation could go to any organization that promoted integration. This is 1969 where he’s putting this in his will. That’s the legacy of this team name. It’s related to George Preston Marshall’s love of minstrelsy and die-hard belief in white supremacy. And for that and for no other reason, it really does belong at most in a museum, and probably just in the dustbin of history.

]]>
Fri, 08 Nov 2013 00:00:00 -0500Corroding Our Democracy: Canada Silences Scientists, Targets Environmentalists in Tar Sands Pushhttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/24/corroding_our_democracy_canada_silences_scientists
tag:democracynow.org,2013-09-24:en/story/ff2a9f AMY GOODMAN : Five years ago this month, the firm TransCanada submitted a permit request to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would bring tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The project has sparked one of the most contentious environmental battles in decades. The Obama administration initially appeared ready to approve Keystone XL, but an unprecedented wave of activism from environmentalists and residents of the states along its path has forced several delays. In the summer of 2011, 1,200 people were arrested outside the White House.
Well, on Saturday, protests were held once again around the country in a national day of action urging President Obama to reject Keystone&#8217;s construction. President Obama also faces continued pressure from backers of the Keystone XL. In their latest push for the project, House Republicans have announced plans to tie the pipeline&#8217;s construction to the upcoming vote on raising the nation&#8217;s debt ceiling. Well, on Monday, delegates at the 2013 International Women&#8217;s Earth and Climate Summit that was held in Suffern, New York, called on Obama to reject the Keystone, saying, quote, &quot;There is no single project in North America that is more significant than Keystone XL in terms of the carbon emissions it would unleash. ... As women who are already seeing the tragic impacts of climate change on families, on indigenous peoples, and on entire countries, we urge you to choose a better future by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.&quot;
At the conference, Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation, described the impact that massive oil and gas extraction has had on her family and its traditional land in northern Alberta.
MELINA LABOUCAN - MASSIMO : I come from a small northern community. It&#8217;s Cree/nēhiyaw, is in our language what we call it. There&#8217;s nothing that compares with the destruction going on there. If there were a global prize for unsustainable development, the tar sands would be a clear winner—not that there&#8217;s a competition going on, by any means, but that I just think that, you know, world-renowned people, experts, are really seeing this as one of the major issues. And that&#8217;s why it&#8217;s one of the biggest—you know, the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and why Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.
So this is what it looks like—very viscous. It&#8217;s, you know, not fluid, so it takes a lot more energy, a lot more water, produces a lot more byproduct. So, it&#8217;s equaling to—why it&#8217;s such a big area, it&#8217;s 141,000 square kilometers, equal to that of destroying, you know, England and Wales combined, or the state of Florida, for American folks. The mines that we&#8217;re dealing with are bigger than entire cities. So there&#8217;s about six, seven right now, could be up to nine. And this is—Imperial Oil, say, for example, will be bigger than Washington, D.C., alone. So that&#8217;s just a mine. And this is taken from the air, so these are some of the biggest dump trucks in the world. A lot of the issues of toxicity we&#8217;re talking from the air, so these are some of the biggest dump trucks in the world.
And a lot of the issues for toxicity that we&#8217;re dealing with is, and which relates to the water, is these huge tailing ponds. They&#8217;re called ponds, but they&#8217;re actually big toxic sludge lakes. They currently span 180 square kilometers just of toxic sludge that&#8217;s sitting on the landscape. So, every day, a million liters are leaching into the Athabasca Watershed, which is, you know, where our families drink from. I&#8217;m from the Peace region, but it connects to the Athabasca, and it goes up into the Arctic Basin, so that&#8217;s where all the northern folks will be getting some of, you know, these toxins. And these contain cyanide, mercury, lead, poly-aromatic hydrocarbon, naphthenic acid. So, there&#8217;s a lot of issues that we&#8217;re dealing with healthwise.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Melina Laboucan-Massimo, member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation in northern Alberta.
All of this comes as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently sent President Obama a letter offering a greater pledge of reduced carbon emissions if the Keystone pipeline is built to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the United States.
Well, for more, I&#8217;m joined by one of Canada&#8217;s leading environmental activists, Tzeporah Berman. She has campaigned for decades around clean energy and is the former co-director of Greenpeace International&#8217;s Climate Unit. She is now focused on stopping tar sands extraction as a member of the steering committee for the Tar Sands Solutions Network. Tzeporah Berman is also the co-founder of ForestEthics and the author of the book, This Crazy Time: Living Our Environmental Challenge .
Welcome to Democracy Now! It&#8217;s great to have you with us, Tzeporah.*
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Thank you. It&#8217;s great to be here.
AMY GOODMAN : Explain what tar sands means for you in Canada and how it has affected your whole country.
TZEPORAH BERMAN : The tar sands are the single largest industrial project on Earth. The scale is almost incomprehensible, if you&#8217;ve never been there. And they are not only the single reason that Canada&#8217;s climate pollution is going up, that we will not meet any of the targets, even the weak targets that have been set, but they&#8217;re also the most toxic project in the country. They&#8217;re polluting our water and our air. The tar sands produces 300 million liters of toxic sludge a day, that is just pumped into open-pit lakes that now stretch about 170 kilometers across Canada.
And, you know, one of the important things about what&#8217;s happening in Canada right now is that Canadian policy on climate change, on environment, on many issues, is being held hostage to the goal that this federal government, the Harper government, and the oil industry have of expanding the tar sands no matter what the cost. You know, oil corrodes. It&#8217;s corroding our pipelines and leading to spills and leaks that are threatening our communities, but it&#8217;s also corroding our democracy. What we&#8217;re seeing in Canada is the—literally, the elimination of 40 years of environmental laws in the last two years in order to make way for quick expansion of tar sands and pipelines. I mean, the Keystone is not the only pipeline this industry is proposing. It&#8217;s a spider web of pipelines across North America, so that they can try and expand this dirty oil as quickly as possible.
AMY GOODMAN : And why is it so dirty?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : It&#8217;s really dirty because it&#8217;s—the oil is mixed with sand. So, in order to get that oil out, they have to use natural gas. More natural gas is used in the tar sands than all the homes in Canada. So, they use natural gas and freshwater to actually remove the oil from the sand, and the result is that each barrel of oil from the tar sands has three to four times more emissions, more climate pollution, than conventional oil.
AMY GOODMAN : And explain how this pipeline would traverse Canada and the United States, and where it goes, what it&#8217;s for. Does the U.S. benefit from the oil going through the pipeline?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : No, this is an export pipeline. What the industry wants is, they want to get this oil off the continent, because they&#8217;ll get a better price. And so, all of the pipelines that are currently being proposed are in order so that the industry can export the oil. So, the Keystone, for example, will go all the way from Alberta straight down through the United States and out to the Gulf. And it&#8217;s not for U.S. consumption. The majority of that oil is destined to—you know, the U.S. is really just in the Canadian oil industry&#8217;s way. And the result is that this is a pipeline that is—presents enormous risk to the American people as a result of the terrible record of oil spills and leaks, and not a lot of benefit.
AMY GOODMAN : Tzeporah, you&#8217;ve been meeting with a number of scientists. This weekend, The New York Times had an interesting editorial called &quot;Silencing Scientists,&quot; and it said, &quot;Over the last few years, the government of Canada—led by Stephen Harper—has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists.&quot; What&#8217;s going on?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Well, first of all, the government has shut down the majority of scientific research in the country that had to deal with climate change. This is a government in denial, and they do not want to talk about climate change. So, last year they shut down the atmospheric research station, which was one of the most important places in the world to get climate data. They shut down the National Round Table on Environment and Economy. They fired hundreds of scientists, and the ones that are left are being told that they can&#8217;t release their research to us, even though it&#8217;s taxpayers-funded research. They&#8217;re also being told that they can&#8217;t speak to the press unless they have a handler and it&#8217;s an approved interview; they have to have a handler from the prime minister&#8217;s office.
So the scientists that I&#8217;ve talked to are—they&#8217;re embarrassed, they&#8217;re frustrated, they&#8217;re protesting. Last week in Canada, we had hundreds of scientists hit the streets in their lab coats protesting the federal government, because they can&#8217;t speak. They&#8217;re being muzzled—you know, to the extent that the, you know, quiet eminent journal Nature last year published an editorial saying it&#8217;s time for Canada to set its scientists free.
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, this is an amazing story. We know it in the United States. Under the Bush administration, you had James Hansen, who was head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA , who had a handler who hadn&#8217;t graduated from college. He was—I think his credential was that he been active on the Bush campaign committee, re-election campaign committee. And James Hansen had to go through him to deal with the media.
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Right, well, but—and James Hansen still got to speak deal with—to speak to the media. Most of the scientists that I&#8217;m talking to in Canada can&#8217;t speak to the media at all. And if they want to talk about climate change, they&#8217;re definitely not going to get those interviews approved. But it&#8217;s not just the scientists that are being muzzled and the climate research that&#8217;s being shut down and people that are being fired. We&#8217;ve also seen an unprecedented attack on charitable organizations that deal with environmental research. The Canadian government has the majority of environmental organizations under Canadian revenue audit, and so the result is you have the majority of the country&#8217;s environmental leaders not able to be a watchdog on what the government is doing.
And secret documents reveal, through freedom of information this year, show that the government eliminated all these environmental laws in Canada at the request of the oil industry, because the environmental laws were in their way. The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline crosses a thousand streams, and those—that would normally trigger an environmental assessment process. Well, when you have no laws, you have no environmental assessment. So when they eradicated all the environmental laws, 3,000 environmental assessments for major industrial projects in Canada were canceled. Now those projects are just approved without environmental assessment.
AMY GOODMAN : What does it mean, the activism, for you in Canada, in the United States, when clearly President Obama has been forced to delay the decision on the Keystone XL because of the massive protest against it?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : I think that what we&#8217;re seeing, not only in the United States, but also in Canada, is an unprecedented climate movement. I think that, you know, these pipelines have provided a tangible focus for communities on the ground. And the oil industry and the government have, in a sense, created their own perfect storm, because while before it might have been people who were concerned about climate change that would get involved in tar sands or pipeline issues, now it&#8217;s people worried about their groundwater. It&#8217;s First Nations and indigenous people across North America who are protesting their rights. It&#8217;s landowners. And so, now you have this perfect storm.
AMY GOODMAN : Earlier this month, the legendary Canadian musician, Neil Young, spoke out against the extraction of tar sands oil in Canada and its export to the U.S. through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. He was speaking to a National Farmers Union rally in Washington, D.C. Neil Young described his recent visit to a tar sands community in Alberta, Canada.
NEIL YOUNG : The fact is, Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland. The Indians up there and the Native peoples are dying. The fuel is all over. There&#8217;s fumes everywhere. You can smell it when you get to town. The closest place to Fort McMurray that is doing the tar sands work is 25 or 30 miles out of town, and you can taste it when you get to Fort McMurray. People are sick. People are dying of cancer because of this.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s the legendary musician Neil Young. I don&#8217;t know how many people here in the U.S. know that he is Canadian, but he is. The significance of him coming? And also, what did the climatologist, the scientist, James Hansen, call the tar sands?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Dr. Hansen has referred to the Keystone XL pipeline as the fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet. And he says that his studies are showing that if we allow the tar sands to expand at the rates that the government and industry want it to expand, then it&#8217;s game over for the planet.
AMY GOODMAN : Tzeporah Berman, I saw you at the International Women&#8217;s Earth and Climate Summit in Suffern, and you talked about your son, having to respond to a question of his. We only have a minute, but explain.
TZEPORAH BERMAN : One night at dinner, my son, who was eight at the time, turned to me and said, &quot;Mommy, why does the government think you&#8217;re a terrorist?&quot; Which is not really the conversation you want to have with your son. Because he had heard on the radio that on the Senate floor, the Harper government was proposing that we change the definition of the term &quot;domestic terrorism&quot; in Canada to include environmentalism.
AMY GOODMAN : And so, what does that mean for you? And what does that mean for environmental activists? Where are you headed now? What are you going to do around tar sands?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Canadians who care about these issues are under attack by our own government, and we&#8217;re being told that if we—that what we do is not in the national interest, unless we support the oil industry&#8217;s agenda. But I think this government has overreached, and we are now finding—you know, our phones are ringing off the hook. People are joining the campaign and stepping up. And let&#8217;s be clear: Canadians want clean energy. Canadians, many of them, are very embarrassed about what our government is doing internationally, so our movement is growing. And so far, we have slowed down all of these pipelines and the expansion.
AMY GOODMAN : What&#8217;s the alternative?
TZEPORAH BERMAN : Well, the alternative for Canada is not only clean energy, renewable energy, which now we can build at scale—we know that—but it&#8217;s also supporting other aspects of our economy, because when you support only one aspect of your economy, the most capital-intensive sector in the country, then it starts to destroy your manufacturing base, your service industry, your tourism industry. We need a diversified economy in Canada, and that&#8217;s not—and that&#8217;s entirely possible.
AMY GOODMAN : Tzeporah Berman, I want to thank you for being with us, leading environmental activist in Canada. She&#8217;s campaigned for decades around clean energy, former co-director of Greenpeace International&#8217;s Climate Unit, now focused on stopping tar sands extraction. AMYGOODMAN: Five years ago this month, the firm TransCanada submitted a permit request to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would bring tar sands oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The project has sparked one of the most contentious environmental battles in decades. The Obama administration initially appeared ready to approve Keystone XL, but an unprecedented wave of activism from environmentalists and residents of the states along its path has forced several delays. In the summer of 2011, 1,200 people were arrested outside the White House.

Well, on Saturday, protests were held once again around the country in a national day of action urging President Obama to reject Keystone’s construction. President Obama also faces continued pressure from backers of the Keystone XL. In their latest push for the project, House Republicans have announced plans to tie the pipeline’s construction to the upcoming vote on raising the nation’s debt ceiling. Well, on Monday, delegates at the 2013 International Women’s Earth and Climate Summit that was held in Suffern, New York, called on Obama to reject the Keystone, saying, quote, "There is no single project in North America that is more significant than Keystone XL in terms of the carbon emissions it would unleash. ... As women who are already seeing the tragic impacts of climate change on families, on indigenous peoples, and on entire countries, we urge you to choose a better future by rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline."

At the conference, Melina Laboucan-Massimo, a member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation, described the impact that massive oil and gas extraction has had on her family and its traditional land in northern Alberta.

MELINALABOUCAN-MASSIMO: I come from a small northern community. It’s Cree/nēhiyaw, is in our language what we call it. There’s nothing that compares with the destruction going on there. If there were a global prize for unsustainable development, the tar sands would be a clear winner—not that there’s a competition going on, by any means, but that I just think that, you know, world-renowned people, experts, are really seeing this as one of the major issues. And that’s why it’s one of the biggest—you know, the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and why Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.

So this is what it looks like—very viscous. It’s, you know, not fluid, so it takes a lot more energy, a lot more water, produces a lot more byproduct. So, it’s equaling to—why it’s such a big area, it’s 141,000 square kilometers, equal to that of destroying, you know, England and Wales combined, or the state of Florida, for American folks. The mines that we’re dealing with are bigger than entire cities. So there’s about six, seven right now, could be up to nine. And this is—Imperial Oil, say, for example, will be bigger than Washington, D.C., alone. So that’s just a mine. And this is taken from the air, so these are some of the biggest dump trucks in the world. A lot of the issues of toxicity we’re talking from the air, so these are some of the biggest dump trucks in the world.

And a lot of the issues for toxicity that we’re dealing with is, and which relates to the water, is these huge tailing ponds. They’re called ponds, but they’re actually big toxic sludge lakes. They currently span 180 square kilometers just of toxic sludge that’s sitting on the landscape. So, every day, a million liters are leaching into the Athabasca Watershed, which is, you know, where our families drink from. I’m from the Peace region, but it connects to the Athabasca, and it goes up into the Arctic Basin, so that’s where all the northern folks will be getting some of, you know, these toxins. And these contain cyanide, mercury, lead, poly-aromatic hydrocarbon, naphthenic acid. So, there’s a lot of issues that we’re dealing with healthwise.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Melina Laboucan-Massimo, member of the Lubicon Cree First Nation in northern Alberta.

All of this comes as Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently sent President Obama a letter offering a greater pledge of reduced carbon emissions if the Keystone pipeline is built to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the United States.

Well, for more, I’m joined by one of Canada’s leading environmental activists, Tzeporah Berman. She has campaigned for decades around clean energy and is the former co-director of Greenpeace International’s Climate Unit. She is now focused on stopping tar sands extraction as a member of the steering committee for the Tar Sands Solutions Network. Tzeporah Berman is also the co-founder of ForestEthics and the author of the book, This Crazy Time: Living Our Environmental Challenge.

Welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us, Tzeporah.

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Thank you. It’s great to be here.

AMYGOODMAN: Explain what tar sands means for you in Canada and how it has affected your whole country.

TZEPORAHBERMAN: The tar sands are the single largest industrial project on Earth. The scale is almost incomprehensible, if you’ve never been there. And they are not only the single reason that Canada’s climate pollution is going up, that we will not meet any of the targets, even the weak targets that have been set, but they’re also the most toxic project in the country. They’re polluting our water and our air. The tar sands produces 300 million liters of toxic sludge a day, that is just pumped into open-pit lakes that now stretch about 170 kilometers across Canada.

And, you know, one of the important things about what’s happening in Canada right now is that Canadian policy on climate change, on environment, on many issues, is being held hostage to the goal that this federal government, the Harper government, and the oil industry have of expanding the tar sands no matter what the cost. You know, oil corrodes. It’s corroding our pipelines and leading to spills and leaks that are threatening our communities, but it’s also corroding our democracy. What we’re seeing in Canada is the—literally, the elimination of 40 years of environmental laws in the last two years in order to make way for quick expansion of tar sands and pipelines. I mean, the Keystone is not the only pipeline this industry is proposing. It’s a spider web of pipelines across North America, so that they can try and expand this dirty oil as quickly as possible.

AMYGOODMAN: And why is it so dirty?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: It’s really dirty because it’s—the oil is mixed with sand. So, in order to get that oil out, they have to use natural gas. More natural gas is used in the tar sands than all the homes in Canada. So, they use natural gas and freshwater to actually remove the oil from the sand, and the result is that each barrel of oil from the tar sands has three to four times more emissions, more climate pollution, than conventional oil.

AMYGOODMAN: And explain how this pipeline would traverse Canada and the United States, and where it goes, what it’s for. Does the U.S. benefit from the oil going through the pipeline?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: No, this is an export pipeline. What the industry wants is, they want to get this oil off the continent, because they’ll get a better price. And so, all of the pipelines that are currently being proposed are in order so that the industry can export the oil. So, the Keystone, for example, will go all the way from Alberta straight down through the United States and out to the Gulf. And it’s not for U.S. consumption. The majority of that oil is destined to—you know, the U.S. is really just in the Canadian oil industry’s way. And the result is that this is a pipeline that is—presents enormous risk to the American people as a result of the terrible record of oil spills and leaks, and not a lot of benefit.

AMYGOODMAN: Tzeporah, you’ve been meeting with a number of scientists. This weekend, The New York Times had an interesting editorial called "Silencing Scientists," and it said, "Over the last few years, the government of Canada—led by Stephen Harper—has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists." What’s going on?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Well, first of all, the government has shut down the majority of scientific research in the country that had to deal with climate change. This is a government in denial, and they do not want to talk about climate change. So, last year they shut down the atmospheric research station, which was one of the most important places in the world to get climate data. They shut down the National Round Table on Environment and Economy. They fired hundreds of scientists, and the ones that are left are being told that they can’t release their research to us, even though it’s taxpayers-funded research. They’re also being told that they can’t speak to the press unless they have a handler and it’s an approved interview; they have to have a handler from the prime minister’s office.

So the scientists that I’ve talked to are—they’re embarrassed, they’re frustrated, they’re protesting. Last week in Canada, we had hundreds of scientists hit the streets in their lab coats protesting the federal government, because they can’t speak. They’re being muzzled—you know, to the extent that the, you know, quiet eminent journal Nature last year published an editorial saying it’s time for Canada to set its scientists free.

AMYGOODMAN: I mean, this is an amazing story. We know it in the United States. Under the Bush administration, you had James Hansen, who was head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, who had a handler who hadn’t graduated from college. He was—I think his credential was that he been active on the Bush campaign committee, re-election campaign committee. And James Hansen had to go through him to deal with the media.

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Right, well, but—and James Hansen still got to speak deal with—to speak to the media. Most of the scientists that I’m talking to in Canada can’t speak to the media at all. And if they want to talk about climate change, they’re definitely not going to get those interviews approved. But it’s not just the scientists that are being muzzled and the climate research that’s being shut down and people that are being fired. We’ve also seen an unprecedented attack on charitable organizations that deal with environmental research. The Canadian government has the majority of environmental organizations under Canadian revenue audit, and so the result is you have the majority of the country’s environmental leaders not able to be a watchdog on what the government is doing.

And secret documents reveal, through freedom of information this year, show that the government eliminated all these environmental laws in Canada at the request of the oil industry, because the environmental laws were in their way. The Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline crosses a thousand streams, and those—that would normally trigger an environmental assessment process. Well, when you have no laws, you have no environmental assessment. So when they eradicated all the environmental laws, 3,000 environmental assessments for major industrial projects in Canada were canceled. Now those projects are just approved without environmental assessment.

AMYGOODMAN: What does it mean, the activism, for you in Canada, in the United States, when clearly President Obama has been forced to delay the decision on the Keystone XL because of the massive protest against it?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: I think that what we’re seeing, not only in the United States, but also in Canada, is an unprecedented climate movement. I think that, you know, these pipelines have provided a tangible focus for communities on the ground. And the oil industry and the government have, in a sense, created their own perfect storm, because while before it might have been people who were concerned about climate change that would get involved in tar sands or pipeline issues, now it’s people worried about their groundwater. It’s First Nations and indigenous people across North America who are protesting their rights. It’s landowners. And so, now you have this perfect storm.

AMYGOODMAN: Earlier this month, the legendary Canadian musician, Neil Young, spoke out against the extraction of tar sands oil in Canada and its export to the U.S. through the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. He was speaking to a National Farmers Union rally in Washington, D.C. Neil Young described his recent visit to a tar sands community in Alberta, Canada.

NEILYOUNG: The fact is, Fort McMurray looks like Hiroshima. Fort McMurray is a wasteland. The Indians up there and the Native peoples are dying. The fuel is all over. There’s fumes everywhere. You can smell it when you get to town. The closest place to Fort McMurray that is doing the tar sands work is 25 or 30 miles out of town, and you can taste it when you get to Fort McMurray. People are sick. People are dying of cancer because of this.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s the legendary musician Neil Young. I don’t know how many people here in the U.S. know that he is Canadian, but he is. The significance of him coming? And also, what did the climatologist, the scientist, James Hansen, call the tar sands?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Dr. Hansen has referred to the Keystone XL pipeline as the fuse to the largest carbon bomb on the planet. And he says that his studies are showing that if we allow the tar sands to expand at the rates that the government and industry want it to expand, then it’s game over for the planet.

AMYGOODMAN: Tzeporah Berman, I saw you at the International Women’s Earth and Climate Summit in Suffern, and you talked about your son, having to respond to a question of his. We only have a minute, but explain.

TZEPORAHBERMAN: One night at dinner, my son, who was eight at the time, turned to me and said, "Mommy, why does the government think you’re a terrorist?" Which is not really the conversation you want to have with your son. Because he had heard on the radio that on the Senate floor, the Harper government was proposing that we change the definition of the term "domestic terrorism" in Canada to include environmentalism.

AMYGOODMAN: And so, what does that mean for you? And what does that mean for environmental activists? Where are you headed now? What are you going to do around tar sands?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Canadians who care about these issues are under attack by our own government, and we’re being told that if we—that what we do is not in the national interest, unless we support the oil industry’s agenda. But I think this government has overreached, and we are now finding—you know, our phones are ringing off the hook. People are joining the campaign and stepping up. And let’s be clear: Canadians want clean energy. Canadians, many of them, are very embarrassed about what our government is doing internationally, so our movement is growing. And so far, we have slowed down all of these pipelines and the expansion.

AMYGOODMAN: What’s the alternative?

TZEPORAHBERMAN: Well, the alternative for Canada is not only clean energy, renewable energy, which now we can build at scale—we know that—but it’s also supporting other aspects of our economy, because when you support only one aspect of your economy, the most capital-intensive sector in the country, then it starts to destroy your manufacturing base, your service industry, your tourism industry. We need a diversified economy in Canada, and that’s not—and that’s entirely possible.

AMYGOODMAN: Tzeporah Berman, I want to thank you for being with us, leading environmental activist in Canada. She’s campaigned for decades around clean energy, former co-director of Greenpeace International’s Climate Unit, now focused on stopping tar sands extraction.

]]>
Tue, 24 Sep 2013 00:00:00 -0400Pete Seeger & Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons on Fracking, Indigenous Struggles and Hiroshima Bombinghttp://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/8/9/pete_seeger_onondaga_leader_oren_lyons_on_fracking_indigenous_struggles_and_hiroshima_bombing
tag:democracynow.org,2013-08-09:blog/1b2680 An extended web-only discussion with two elders, the legendary folk singer Pete Seeger and Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons. They are in New York City today to greet hundreds of Native Americans and their allies who have paddled more than a hundred miles down the Hudson River to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first treaty between Native Americans and the Europeans who traveled here. The event is part of the International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples, first proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago.
Watch Part 1 &amp; 2 of today&#8217;s interviews:
Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons, Pete Seeger on International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples
Pete Seeger Remembers His Late Wife Toshi, Sings Civil Rights Anthem &#39;We Shall Overcome&#39;
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Pete Seeger, Oren Lyons and Andy Mager. Pete?
PETE SEEGER : And Oren Lyons is one of the wisest men in the world, this Onondaga leader. I have heard him speak on different occasions, and I&#8217;ve come away and said, &quot;How I wish this man could be heard by everybody in America, everybody in the world.&quot; He&#8217;s a wise man.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the two of you meet, Pete and Oren?
PETE SEEGER : He came to speak for the Clearwater annual meeting, the little—little organization we have trying to clean up the Hudson River. And he came to speak to us. And he—when I heard him, I said, &quot;This man—this man should be heard by everybody.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Oren Lyons, on this Indigenous People&#8217;s Day, what are your thoughts you&#8217;d like to share with our viewers and listeners and readers around the world?
OREN LYONS : Well, as I listened to Pete sing, recognizing the spirit in all of us, the spirit is powerful, and the will, the will to continue and do what has to be done, and responsibility for adults to act like adults, for leaders to act like leaders, and to take away from the corporate powers that are currently in charge of the direction of this Earth and return it back to the people, where it belongs, and also to protect, really be responsible for seven generations of life coming. That&#8217;s our mission, and that&#8217;s my mission. It&#8217;s always been our mission. The mission is peace. The mission is forever. And the mission is friendship, and to understand that the human family is a family—doesn&#8217;t matter what color you are. You can change blood. You can&#8217;t get any closer than that. And people should understand that.
AMY GOODMAN : What does it mean to be the faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation? And tell us the history of the Onondaga.
OREN LYONS : The Onondaga Nation was the central fire that the peacemaker had to deal with. The Todadaho was the fiercest of all people, and he changed that man. He changed that man. And that is—that proves that no one is above redemption. I don&#8217;t care what you do, you can change. And that was a severe lesson to everybody. We remember that. So, today, the Todadaho, Sid Hill, will be up here meeting and greeting with the people and carrying these words of peace. Over a thousand years ago, he was the fiercest, the fiercest enemy of peace. And so, the ideas of democracy, the ideas of leadership by the people and for the people, those are old words. Those belong to our confederation and were taken on by the new government. I think they stalled in several places, but the essence is still there. The essence is still there, but it needs the work of the people. The people have to stand. The people have to move. It&#8217;s they who hold the power. They hold the authority, and always did and always will. So, they have to understand that. So, as long as you&#8217;re waiting for somebody to tell you to do something, you&#8217;re going to wait a long time.
AMY GOODMAN : The significance of the Idle No More movement in Canada?
OREN LYONS : Oh, yes.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain what it is?
OREN LYONS : Well, it&#8217;s four women, three Indian women and one white woman, who just said, &quot;This is enough, and we are not going to stand by. We&#8217;re not going to be idle no more.&quot; And they challenged the leadership of Canada. And Prime Minister Harper has really challenged the future of people in opening up this huge open-pit mining, you know, that Keystone pipeline, is so intent. All about commerce, nothing about the future. And so, they took a stand, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re not idle anymore.&quot; And, of course, the media never followed it, but it went around the world, and there are people around the world responding to that. It&#8217;s a grassroots movement, and it&#8217;s a lesson in what you can do if you make your stand. And so, that&#8217;s what common people do: lock their arms and stand.
AMY GOODMAN : Andy Mager, Reuters is reporting Chesapeake Energy has abandoned a two-year legal battle to retain leases on thousands of acres of land in New York, where it planned to drill for natural gas using, you know, the controversial technique of fracking, provided the state lift a ban on the practice. Do you know about this and what the significance of this is?
ANDY MAGER : It was announced to our camp that they were abandoning the leases a couple of days ago, not with that last caveat about New York state lifting the moratorium. So, obviously, we would oppose the lifting of the moratorium. We welcome them abandoning the leases and stopping harassing the people of New York state to try to get them to allow this drilling technique.
To get back to what Oren was saying, you know, the purpose of this journey down the Hudson, and the larger campaign of which it&#8217;s a part, is to sow seeds to build a social movement, a movement powerful enough to compel New York state and the United States to live up to these treaties and, in doing so, to honor the Earth. And we have been overjoyed by the response we&#8217;ve received all the way down the Hudson River from individual citizens, from local government leaders and civic organizations, welcoming what we are doing, providing support, aligning with this broader mission, that we need to honor the treaties that we have signed, to live up to them after 400 years, and to work together for a better future. So we welcome people to join with us today at the pier, in the future through our website, Facebook, etc., because this is not—this landing in New York is in some ways a ending of the paddling journey, but the beginning of a broader movement that we will be looking for support from progressive people, far and wide, to engage in.
AMY GOODMAN : Pete Seeger, I wanted to get your assessment of President Obama. I mean, look at this moment in time. You sang at his inauguration, that remarkable moment, &quot;This Land is Your Land.&quot; We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Actually, President Obama will be standing in the same place as Dr. King did when he delivered his speech, and will give a speech on August 28th in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You were not at the March on Washington, were you?
PETE SEEGER : No, I took my family—my wife and I took our three children out of school, and in 10-and-a-half months we visited 28 countries around the world, small countries. We visited Somoa in the Pacific, and then Australia, Indonesia. And her father joined us. He saw his own family again for the first time in 50 years. He helped the American war effort. He did very dangerous things. He wrote to Washington right after Pearl Harbor, says, &quot;The only hope for Japan is to get rid of the militarists,&quot; because fascists had taken over Japan just like they took over Germany.
AMY GOODMAN : Where did you hear about Dr. King&#8217;s speech, &quot;I Have a Dream&quot;? Do you remember?
PETE SEEGER : I read it. I&#8217;m a readaholic. And—
AMY GOODMAN : So, somewhere in that journey?
PETE SEEGER : And he was surely one of the most astonishing speakers in the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Did you ever get to meet him?
PETE SEEGER : I met him only twice—once very briefly when he—just a year after the bus boycott, where he first became well known—
AMY GOODMAN : In Montgomery?
PETE SEEGER : No, he came to the little school in the Highlands of Tennessee, called the Highlander Folk School. And that&#8217;s where he heard me sing &quot;We Shall Overcome.&quot; And then, I was singing a few songs in the street outside the United Nations when he made perhaps the most—one of the two most important speeches. He said, &quot;I have to face the fact that my own country is the greatest purveyor of violence. We must get out of Vietnam.&quot; I&#8217;m sure—
AMY GOODMAN : You were at Riverside Church, April 4th, 1967?
PETE SEEGER : No, I was in the streets, where he gave the same speech a day later outside the United Nations. And I was up on the speakers&#8217; stand when I saw a black car inching its way through the crowd. And I heard people: &quot;He&#8217;s here! He&#8217;s here!&quot; He got 20 feet away from the speakers&#8217; stand, and the door opened, and Dr. King got out. It took six strong men to help him—to make it possible for him to make 20 feet from the car to the speakers&#8217; stand. I said, &quot;How can anybody live with this kind of adulation?&quot; Well, I&#8217;m sure—I have absolutely no proof, but I think that&#8217;s when LBJ lost his temper. He said, &quot;After all I did for that guy, look what he does to me!&quot; He probably picked up the phone to J. Edgar Hoover, said, &quot;Do what you want!&quot; Slam!
AMY GOODMAN : What was Dr. King&#8217;s reaction to hearing you sing &quot;We Shall Overcome&quot; at the Highlander Center?
PETE SEEGER : Oh, he was sitting in the backseat of a car, while a woman I know, wonderful woman, was driving him to some speaking engagement up in Kentucky. He said, &quot;&#39;We Shall Overcome,&#39; that really—song really sticks with you, doesn&#8217;t it?&quot;
He—at only age 14, some man wrote a letter to the big newspaper in Atlanta: &quot;Why do Negroes want to marry white? Don&#8217;t they know that we&#8217;re supposed to be separate people?&quot; And this 14-year-old writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper: &quot;Surely, Mr. So-and-So, whoever wrote this letter, must know that if there are people in America of mixed ancestry, it&#8217;s not because Negroes want to marry whites, but because of aggressive white males taking advantage of defenseless black females.&quot; In one sentence, he said what most people would have taken paragraphs to say.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Martin Luther King when he was 14 years old?
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : What is your assessment of President Obama?
PETE SEEGER : I wish that he had made so few compromises that he would not have gotten re-elected. And then, four years later, he would have gotten re-elected, because the contrast between what he did and the people who took over for the four years in between would have been obvious to the whole world.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I know that you all have to go to the pier to meet the rowers who are coming up the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : We do.
AMY GOODMAN : But I was wondering if you could take us out on a song, maybe the hammer song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; which was sung by Peter, Paul and Mary at the March on Washington, your song, 50 years ago, August 28th.
PETE SEEGER : Well, Woody Guthrie was one of the greatest songwriters I knew, but the bass in The Weavers, a man named Lee Hays from Arkansas, was another one of the geniuses. And he knew that a lot of old gospel songs, just change one word, and you&#8217;ve got a new verse. So he sent me four verses, says, &quot;Pete, can you make up a tune?&quot; I tried to, but it wasn&#8217;t as good a tune as it should have been. And Peter, Paul and Mary improved my tune. And then the song went around the world. Marlene Dietrich toured the world, and—no, she sang &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; But the song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; went all sorts of places that I could never go, and I&#8217;m very glad.
[singing] If I had a hammer,
I&#8217;d hammer in the morning,
I&#8217;d hammer in the evening,
All over this land,
I&#8217;d hammer out danger,
Hammer out a warning,
Hammer out love between,
All of my brothers,
Oh, a woman said, &quot;Make that &#39;My brothers and my sisters.&#39;&quot; Lee says, &quot;It doesn&#8217;t roll off the tongue so well. But she insisted. He said, &quot;How about &#39;All of my siblings&#39;?&quot; She didn&#8217;t think that was funny.
[singing] All over this land.
If I had a song,
Don&#8217;t need to sing the whole song. You can sing it to yourself, whether you&#8217;re driving a car or washing the dishes or just singing to your kids. We haven&#8217;t mentioned children much on this program, but it may be children realizing that you can&#8217;t live without love, you can&#8217;t live without fun and laughter, you can&#8217;t live without friends—and I say, &quot;Long live teachers of children,&quot; because they can show children how they can save the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Can we end with &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; for the children?
PETE SEEGER : No. You sing it.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to end on a lovely note.
PETE SEEGER : No. I&#8217;ve sung lots of songs. And the other day, a group of Japanese Americans remembered Hiroshima, and I sang four short verses.
[singing] We come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead, for I am dead.
I&#8217;m only seven, although I died
In Hiroshima long ago.
I&#8217;m seven now, as I was then.
When children die, they do not grow.
My hair was scorched by swirling flame;
My eyes grew dim, my eyes grew blind.
Death came and turned my bones to dust,
And that was scattered by the wind.
I need no fruit, I need no rice.
I need no sweets, not even bread;
I ask for nothing for myself,
For I am dead, for I am dead.
All that I ask is that for peace
You fight today, you fight today.
So that the children of this world
May live and grow and laugh and play!
AMY GOODMAN : Pete, thank you so much, and especially on this day, August 9th, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki 68 years ago, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima 68 years ago.
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And now you head to greet the rowers coming down the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : Mm-hmm, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And I thank you so much for being with us. Peter Seeger, Oren Lyons, Andy Mager, thanks for giving us a gift today.
ANDY MAGER : Thank you, Amy.
OREN LYONS : Thank you, Amy.
An extended web-only discussion with two elders, the legendary folk singer Pete Seeger and Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons. They are in New York City today to greet hundreds of Native Americans and their allies who have paddled more than a hundred miles down the Hudson River to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first treaty between Native Americans and the Europeans who traveled here. The event is part of the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples, first proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago.

AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Pete Seeger, Oren Lyons and Andy Mager. Pete?

PETESEEGER: And Oren Lyons is one of the wisest men in the world, this Onondaga leader. I have heard him speak on different occasions, and I’ve come away and said, "How I wish this man could be heard by everybody in America, everybody in the world." He’s a wise man.

AMYGOODMAN: How did the two of you meet, Pete and Oren?

PETESEEGER: He came to speak for the Clearwater annual meeting, the little—little organization we have trying to clean up the Hudson River. And he came to speak to us. And he—when I heard him, I said, "This man—this man should be heard by everybody."

AMYGOODMAN: Oren Lyons, on this Indigenous People’s Day, what are your thoughts you’d like to share with our viewers and listeners and readers around the world?

ORENLYONS: Well, as I listened to Pete sing, recognizing the spirit in all of us, the spirit is powerful, and the will, the will to continue and do what has to be done, and responsibility for adults to act like adults, for leaders to act like leaders, and to take away from the corporate powers that are currently in charge of the direction of this Earth and return it back to the people, where it belongs, and also to protect, really be responsible for seven generations of life coming. That’s our mission, and that’s my mission. It’s always been our mission. The mission is peace. The mission is forever. And the mission is friendship, and to understand that the human family is a family—doesn’t matter what color you are. You can change blood. You can’t get any closer than that. And people should understand that.

AMYGOODMAN: What does it mean to be the faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation? And tell us the history of the Onondaga.

ORENLYONS: The Onondaga Nation was the central fire that the peacemaker had to deal with. The Todadaho was the fiercest of all people, and he changed that man. He changed that man. And that is—that proves that no one is above redemption. I don’t care what you do, you can change. And that was a severe lesson to everybody. We remember that. So, today, the Todadaho, Sid Hill, will be up here meeting and greeting with the people and carrying these words of peace. Over a thousand years ago, he was the fiercest, the fiercest enemy of peace. And so, the ideas of democracy, the ideas of leadership by the people and for the people, those are old words. Those belong to our confederation and were taken on by the new government. I think they stalled in several places, but the essence is still there. The essence is still there, but it needs the work of the people. The people have to stand. The people have to move. It’s they who hold the power. They hold the authority, and always did and always will. So, they have to understand that. So, as long as you’re waiting for somebody to tell you to do something, you’re going to wait a long time.

AMYGOODMAN: The significance of the Idle No More movement in Canada?

ORENLYONS: Oh, yes.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you explain what it is?

ORENLYONS: Well, it’s four women, three Indian women and one white woman, who just said, "This is enough, and we are not going to stand by. We’re not going to be idle no more." And they challenged the leadership of Canada. And Prime Minister Harper has really challenged the future of people in opening up this huge open-pit mining, you know, that Keystone pipeline, is so intent. All about commerce, nothing about the future. And so, they took a stand, and they said, "We’re not idle anymore." And, of course, the media never followed it, but it went around the world, and there are people around the world responding to that. It’s a grassroots movement, and it’s a lesson in what you can do if you make your stand. And so, that’s what common people do: lock their arms and stand.

AMYGOODMAN: Andy Mager, Reuters is reporting Chesapeake Energy has abandoned a two-year legal battle to retain leases on thousands of acres of land in New York, where it planned to drill for natural gas using, you know, the controversial technique of fracking, provided the state lift a ban on the practice. Do you know about this and what the significance of this is?

ANDYMAGER: It was announced to our camp that they were abandoning the leases a couple of days ago, not with that last caveat about New York state lifting the moratorium. So, obviously, we would oppose the lifting of the moratorium. We welcome them abandoning the leases and stopping harassing the people of New York state to try to get them to allow this drilling technique.

To get back to what Oren was saying, you know, the purpose of this journey down the Hudson, and the larger campaign of which it’s a part, is to sow seeds to build a social movement, a movement powerful enough to compel New York state and the United States to live up to these treaties and, in doing so, to honor the Earth. And we have been overjoyed by the response we’ve received all the way down the Hudson River from individual citizens, from local government leaders and civic organizations, welcoming what we are doing, providing support, aligning with this broader mission, that we need to honor the treaties that we have signed, to live up to them after 400 years, and to work together for a better future. So we welcome people to join with us today at the pier, in the future through our website, Facebook, etc., because this is not—this landing in New York is in some ways a ending of the paddling journey, but the beginning of a broader movement that we will be looking for support from progressive people, far and wide, to engage in.

AMYGOODMAN: Pete Seeger, I wanted to get your assessment of President Obama. I mean, look at this moment in time. You sang at his inauguration, that remarkable moment, "This Land is Your Land." We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Actually, President Obama will be standing in the same place as Dr. King did when he delivered his speech, and will give a speech on August 28th in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You were not at the March on Washington, were you?

PETESEEGER: No, I took my family—my wife and I took our three children out of school, and in 10-and-a-half months we visited 28 countries around the world, small countries. We visited Somoa in the Pacific, and then Australia, Indonesia. And her father joined us. He saw his own family again for the first time in 50 years. He helped the American war effort. He did very dangerous things. He wrote to Washington right after Pearl Harbor, says, "The only hope for Japan is to get rid of the militarists," because fascists had taken over Japan just like they took over Germany.

AMYGOODMAN: Where did you hear about Dr. King’s speech, "I Have a Dream"? Do you remember?

PETESEEGER: I read it. I’m a readaholic. And—

AMYGOODMAN: So, somewhere in that journey?

PETESEEGER: And he was surely one of the most astonishing speakers in the world.

AMYGOODMAN: Did you ever get to meet him?

PETESEEGER: I met him only twice—once very briefly when he—just a year after the bus boycott, where he first became well known—

AMYGOODMAN: In Montgomery?

PETESEEGER: No, he came to the little school in the Highlands of Tennessee, called the Highlander Folk School. And that’s where he heard me sing "We Shall Overcome." And then, I was singing a few songs in the street outside the United Nations when he made perhaps the most—one of the two most important speeches. He said, "I have to face the fact that my own country is the greatest purveyor of violence. We must get out of Vietnam." I’m sure—

AMYGOODMAN: You were at Riverside Church, April 4th, 1967?

PETESEEGER: No, I was in the streets, where he gave the same speech a day later outside the United Nations. And I was up on the speakers’ stand when I saw a black car inching its way through the crowd. And I heard people: "He’s here! He’s here!" He got 20 feet away from the speakers’ stand, and the door opened, and Dr. King got out. It took six strong men to help him—to make it possible for him to make 20 feet from the car to the speakers’ stand. I said, "How can anybody live with this kind of adulation?" Well, I’m sure—I have absolutely no proof, but I think that’s when LBJ lost his temper. He said, "After all I did for that guy, look what he does to me!" He probably picked up the phone to J. Edgar Hoover, said, "Do what you want!" Slam!

AMYGOODMAN: What was Dr. King’s reaction to hearing you sing "We Shall Overcome" at the Highlander Center?

PETESEEGER: Oh, he was sitting in the backseat of a car, while a woman I know, wonderful woman, was driving him to some speaking engagement up in Kentucky. He said, "'We Shall Overcome,' that really—song really sticks with you, doesn’t it?"

He—at only age 14, some man wrote a letter to the big newspaper in Atlanta: "Why do Negroes want to marry white? Don’t they know that we’re supposed to be separate people?" And this 14-year-old writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper: "Surely, Mr. So-and-So, whoever wrote this letter, must know that if there are people in America of mixed ancestry, it’s not because Negroes want to marry whites, but because of aggressive white males taking advantage of defenseless black females." In one sentence, he said what most people would have taken paragraphs to say.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Martin Luther King when he was 14 years old?

PETESEEGER: Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: What is your assessment of President Obama?

PETESEEGER: I wish that he had made so few compromises that he would not have gotten re-elected. And then, four years later, he would have gotten re-elected, because the contrast between what he did and the people who took over for the four years in between would have been obvious to the whole world.

AMYGOODMAN: Well, I know that you all have to go to the pier to meet the rowers who are coming up the Hudson.

PETESEEGER: We do.

AMYGOODMAN: But I was wondering if you could take us out on a song, maybe the hammer song, "If I Had a Hammer," which was sung by Peter, Paul and Mary at the March on Washington, your song, 50 years ago, August 28th.

PETESEEGER: Well, Woody Guthrie was one of the greatest songwriters I knew, but the bass in The Weavers, a man named Lee Hays from Arkansas, was another one of the geniuses. And he knew that a lot of old gospel songs, just change one word, and you’ve got a new verse. So he sent me four verses, says, "Pete, can you make up a tune?" I tried to, but it wasn’t as good a tune as it should have been. And Peter, Paul and Mary improved my tune. And then the song went around the world. Marlene Dietrich toured the world, and—no, she sang "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" But the song, "If I Had a Hammer," went all sorts of places that I could never go, and I’m very glad.

[singing] If I had a hammer,I’d hammer in the morning,I’d hammer in the evening,All over this land,I’d hammer out danger,Hammer out a warning,Hammer out love between,All of my brothers,

Oh, a woman said, "Make that 'My brothers and my sisters.'" Lee says, "It doesn’t roll off the tongue so well. But she insisted. He said, "How about 'All of my siblings'?" She didn’t think that was funny.

[singing] All over this land.If I had a song,

Don’t need to sing the whole song. You can sing it to yourself, whether you’re driving a car or washing the dishes or just singing to your kids. We haven’t mentioned children much on this program, but it may be children realizing that you can’t live without love, you can’t live without fun and laughter, you can’t live without friends—and I say, "Long live teachers of children," because they can show children how they can save the world.

AMYGOODMAN: Can we end with "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" for the children?

PETESEEGER: No. You sing it.

AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to end on a lovely note.

PETESEEGER: No. I’ve sung lots of songs. And the other day, a group of Japanese Americans remembered Hiroshima, and I sang four short verses.

[singing] We come and stand at every doorBut none can hear my silent treadI knock and yet remain unseenFor I am dead, for I am dead.

I’m only seven, although I diedIn Hiroshima long ago.I’m seven now, as I was then.When children die, they do not grow.

My hair was scorched by swirling flame;My eyes grew dim, my eyes grew blind.Death came and turned my bones to dust,And that was scattered by the wind.

I need no fruit, I need no rice.I need no sweets, not even bread;I ask for nothing for myself,For I am dead, for I am dead.

All that I ask is that for peaceYou fight today, you fight today.So that the children of this worldMay live and grow and laugh and play!

AMYGOODMAN: Pete, thank you so much, and especially on this day, August 9th, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki 68 years ago, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima 68 years ago.

PETESEEGER: Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: And now you head to greet the rowers coming down the Hudson.

PETESEEGER: Mm-hmm, yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: And I thank you so much for being with us. Peter Seeger, Oren Lyons, Andy Mager, thanks for giving us a gift today.

ANDYMAGER: Thank you, Amy.

ORENLYONS: Thank you, Amy.

]]>
Fri, 09 Aug 2013 14:37:00 -0400Pete Seeger & Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons on Fracking, Indigenous Struggles and Hiroshima Bombing An extended web-only discussion with two elders, the legendary folk singer Pete Seeger and Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons. They are in New York City today to greet hundreds of Native Americans and their allies who have paddled more than a hundred miles down the Hudson River to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first treaty between Native Americans and the Europeans who traveled here. The event is part of the International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples, first proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago.
Watch Part 1 &amp; 2 of today&#8217;s interviews:
Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons, Pete Seeger on International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples
Pete Seeger Remembers His Late Wife Toshi, Sings Civil Rights Anthem &#39;We Shall Overcome&#39;
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Pete Seeger, Oren Lyons and Andy Mager. Pete?
PETE SEEGER : And Oren Lyons is one of the wisest men in the world, this Onondaga leader. I have heard him speak on different occasions, and I&#8217;ve come away and said, &quot;How I wish this man could be heard by everybody in America, everybody in the world.&quot; He&#8217;s a wise man.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the two of you meet, Pete and Oren?
PETE SEEGER : He came to speak for the Clearwater annual meeting, the little—little organization we have trying to clean up the Hudson River. And he came to speak to us. And he—when I heard him, I said, &quot;This man—this man should be heard by everybody.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Oren Lyons, on this Indigenous People&#8217;s Day, what are your thoughts you&#8217;d like to share with our viewers and listeners and readers around the world?
OREN LYONS : Well, as I listened to Pete sing, recognizing the spirit in all of us, the spirit is powerful, and the will, the will to continue and do what has to be done, and responsibility for adults to act like adults, for leaders to act like leaders, and to take away from the corporate powers that are currently in charge of the direction of this Earth and return it back to the people, where it belongs, and also to protect, really be responsible for seven generations of life coming. That&#8217;s our mission, and that&#8217;s my mission. It&#8217;s always been our mission. The mission is peace. The mission is forever. And the mission is friendship, and to understand that the human family is a family—doesn&#8217;t matter what color you are. You can change blood. You can&#8217;t get any closer than that. And people should understand that.
AMY GOODMAN : What does it mean to be the faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation? And tell us the history of the Onondaga.
OREN LYONS : The Onondaga Nation was the central fire that the peacemaker had to deal with. The Todadaho was the fiercest of all people, and he changed that man. He changed that man. And that is—that proves that no one is above redemption. I don&#8217;t care what you do, you can change. And that was a severe lesson to everybody. We remember that. So, today, the Todadaho, Sid Hill, will be up here meeting and greeting with the people and carrying these words of peace. Over a thousand years ago, he was the fiercest, the fiercest enemy of peace. And so, the ideas of democracy, the ideas of leadership by the people and for the people, those are old words. Those belong to our confederation and were taken on by the new government. I think they stalled in several places, but the essence is still there. The essence is still there, but it needs the work of the people. The people have to stand. The people have to move. It&#8217;s they who hold the power. They hold the authority, and always did and always will. So, they have to understand that. So, as long as you&#8217;re waiting for somebody to tell you to do something, you&#8217;re going to wait a long time.
AMY GOODMAN : The significance of the Idle No More movement in Canada?
OREN LYONS : Oh, yes.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain what it is?
OREN LYONS : Well, it&#8217;s four women, three Indian women and one white woman, who just said, &quot;This is enough, and we are not going to stand by. We&#8217;re not going to be idle no more.&quot; And they challenged the leadership of Canada. And Prime Minister Harper has really challenged the future of people in opening up this huge open-pit mining, you know, that Keystone pipeline, is so intent. All about commerce, nothing about the future. And so, they took a stand, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re not idle anymore.&quot; And, of course, the media never followed it, but it went around the world, and there are people around the world responding to that. It&#8217;s a grassroots movement, and it&#8217;s a lesson in what you can do if you make your stand. And so, that&#8217;s what common people do: lock their arms and stand.
AMY GOODMAN : Andy Mager, Reuters is reporting Chesapeake Energy has abandoned a two-year legal battle to retain leases on thousands of acres of land in New York, where it planned to drill for natural gas using, you know, the controversial technique of fracking, provided the state lift a ban on the practice. Do you know about this and what the significance of this is?
ANDY MAGER : It was announced to our camp that they were abandoning the leases a couple of days ago, not with that last caveat about New York state lifting the moratorium. So, obviously, we would oppose the lifting of the moratorium. We welcome them abandoning the leases and stopping harassing the people of New York state to try to get them to allow this drilling technique.
To get back to what Oren was saying, you know, the purpose of this journey down the Hudson, and the larger campaign of which it&#8217;s a part, is to sow seeds to build a social movement, a movement powerful enough to compel New York state and the United States to live up to these treaties and, in doing so, to honor the Earth. And we have been overjoyed by the response we&#8217;ve received all the way down the Hudson River from individual citizens, from local government leaders and civic organizations, welcoming what we are doing, providing support, aligning with this broader mission, that we need to honor the treaties that we have signed, to live up to them after 400 years, and to work together for a better future. So we welcome people to join with us today at the pier, in the future through our website, Facebook, etc., because this is not—this landing in New York is in some ways a ending of the paddling journey, but the beginning of a broader movement that we will be looking for support from progressive people, far and wide, to engage in.
AMY GOODMAN : Pete Seeger, I wanted to get your assessment of President Obama. I mean, look at this moment in time. You sang at his inauguration, that remarkable moment, &quot;This Land is Your Land.&quot; We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Actually, President Obama will be standing in the same place as Dr. King did when he delivered his speech, and will give a speech on August 28th in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You were not at the March on Washington, were you?
PETE SEEGER : No, I took my family—my wife and I took our three children out of school, and in 10-and-a-half months we visited 28 countries around the world, small countries. We visited Somoa in the Pacific, and then Australia, Indonesia. And her father joined us. He saw his own family again for the first time in 50 years. He helped the American war effort. He did very dangerous things. He wrote to Washington right after Pearl Harbor, says, &quot;The only hope for Japan is to get rid of the militarists,&quot; because fascists had taken over Japan just like they took over Germany.
AMY GOODMAN : Where did you hear about Dr. King&#8217;s speech, &quot;I Have a Dream&quot;? Do you remember?
PETE SEEGER : I read it. I&#8217;m a readaholic. And—
AMY GOODMAN : So, somewhere in that journey?
PETE SEEGER : And he was surely one of the most astonishing speakers in the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Did you ever get to meet him?
PETE SEEGER : I met him only twice—once very briefly when he—just a year after the bus boycott, where he first became well known—
AMY GOODMAN : In Montgomery?
PETE SEEGER : No, he came to the little school in the Highlands of Tennessee, called the Highlander Folk School. And that&#8217;s where he heard me sing &quot;We Shall Overcome.&quot; And then, I was singing a few songs in the street outside the United Nations when he made perhaps the most—one of the two most important speeches. He said, &quot;I have to face the fact that my own country is the greatest purveyor of violence. We must get out of Vietnam.&quot; I&#8217;m sure—
AMY GOODMAN : You were at Riverside Church, April 4th, 1967?
PETE SEEGER : No, I was in the streets, where he gave the same speech a day later outside the United Nations. And I was up on the speakers&#8217; stand when I saw a black car inching its way through the crowd. And I heard people: &quot;He&#8217;s here! He&#8217;s here!&quot; He got 20 feet away from the speakers&#8217; stand, and the door opened, and Dr. King got out. It took six strong men to help him—to make it possible for him to make 20 feet from the car to the speakers&#8217; stand. I said, &quot;How can anybody live with this kind of adulation?&quot; Well, I&#8217;m sure—I have absolutely no proof, but I think that&#8217;s when LBJ lost his temper. He said, &quot;After all I did for that guy, look what he does to me!&quot; He probably picked up the phone to J. Edgar Hoover, said, &quot;Do what you want!&quot; Slam!
AMY GOODMAN : What was Dr. King&#8217;s reaction to hearing you sing &quot;We Shall Overcome&quot; at the Highlander Center?
PETE SEEGER : Oh, he was sitting in the backseat of a car, while a woman I know, wonderful woman, was driving him to some speaking engagement up in Kentucky. He said, &quot;&#39;We Shall Overcome,&#39; that really—song really sticks with you, doesn&#8217;t it?&quot;
He—at only age 14, some man wrote a letter to the big newspaper in Atlanta: &quot;Why do Negroes want to marry white? Don&#8217;t they know that we&#8217;re supposed to be separate people?&quot; And this 14-year-old writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper: &quot;Surely, Mr. So-and-So, whoever wrote this letter, must know that if there are people in America of mixed ancestry, it&#8217;s not because Negroes want to marry whites, but because of aggressive white males taking advantage of defenseless black females.&quot; In one sentence, he said what most people would have taken paragraphs to say.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Martin Luther King when he was 14 years old?
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : What is your assessment of President Obama?
PETE SEEGER : I wish that he had made so few compromises that he would not have gotten re-elected. And then, four years later, he would have gotten re-elected, because the contrast between what he did and the people who took over for the four years in between would have been obvious to the whole world.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I know that you all have to go to the pier to meet the rowers who are coming up the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : We do.
AMY GOODMAN : But I was wondering if you could take us out on a song, maybe the hammer song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; which was sung by Peter, Paul and Mary at the March on Washington, your song, 50 years ago, August 28th.
PETE SEEGER : Well, Woody Guthrie was one of the greatest songwriters I knew, but the bass in The Weavers, a man named Lee Hays from Arkansas, was another one of the geniuses. And he knew that a lot of old gospel songs, just change one word, and you&#8217;ve got a new verse. So he sent me four verses, says, &quot;Pete, can you make up a tune?&quot; I tried to, but it wasn&#8217;t as good a tune as it should have been. And Peter, Paul and Mary improved my tune. And then the song went around the world. Marlene Dietrich toured the world, and—no, she sang &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; But the song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; went all sorts of places that I could never go, and I&#8217;m very glad.
[singing] If I had a hammer,
I&#8217;d hammer in the morning,
I&#8217;d hammer in the evening,
All over this land,
I&#8217;d hammer out danger,
Hammer out a warning,
Hammer out love between,
All of my brothers,
Oh, a woman said, &quot;Make that &#39;My brothers and my sisters.&#39;&quot; Lee says, &quot;It doesn&#8217;t roll off the tongue so well. But she insisted. He said, &quot;How about &#39;All of my siblings&#39;?&quot; She didn&#8217;t think that was funny.
[singing] All over this land.
If I had a song,
Don&#8217;t need to sing the whole song. You can sing it to yourself, whether you&#8217;re driving a car or washing the dishes or just singing to your kids. We haven&#8217;t mentioned children much on this program, but it may be children realizing that you can&#8217;t live without love, you can&#8217;t live without fun and laughter, you can&#8217;t live without friends—and I say, &quot;Long live teachers of children,&quot; because they can show children how they can save the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Can we end with &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; for the children?
PETE SEEGER : No. You sing it.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to end on a lovely note.
PETE SEEGER : No. I&#8217;ve sung lots of songs. And the other day, a group of Japanese Americans remembered Hiroshima, and I sang four short verses.
[singing] We come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead, for I am dead.
I&#8217;m only seven, although I died
In Hiroshima long ago.
I&#8217;m seven now, as I was then.
When children die, they do not grow.
My hair was scorched by swirling flame;
My eyes grew dim, my eyes grew blind.
Death came and turned my bones to dust,
And that was scattered by the wind.
I need no fruit, I need no rice.
I need no sweets, not even bread;
I ask for nothing for myself,
For I am dead, for I am dead.
All that I ask is that for peace
You fight today, you fight today.
So that the children of this world
May live and grow and laugh and play!
AMY GOODMAN : Pete, thank you so much, and especially on this day, August 9th, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki 68 years ago, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima 68 years ago.
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And now you head to greet the rowers coming down the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : Mm-hmm, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And I thank you so much for being with us. Peter Seeger, Oren Lyons, Andy Mager, thanks for giving us a gift today.
ANDY MAGER : Thank you, Amy.
OREN LYONS : Thank you, Amy. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsPete Seeger & Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons on Fracking, Indigenous Struggles and Hiroshima Bombing An extended web-only discussion with two elders, the legendary folk singer Pete Seeger and Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons. They are in New York City today to greet hundreds of Native Americans and their allies who have paddled more than a hundred miles down the Hudson River to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the first treaty between Native Americans and the Europeans who traveled here. The event is part of the International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples, first proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago.
Watch Part 1 &amp; 2 of today&#8217;s interviews:
Onondaga Leader Oren Lyons, Pete Seeger on International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples
Pete Seeger Remembers His Late Wife Toshi, Sings Civil Rights Anthem &#39;We Shall Overcome&#39;
AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Pete Seeger, Oren Lyons and Andy Mager. Pete?
PETE SEEGER : And Oren Lyons is one of the wisest men in the world, this Onondaga leader. I have heard him speak on different occasions, and I&#8217;ve come away and said, &quot;How I wish this man could be heard by everybody in America, everybody in the world.&quot; He&#8217;s a wise man.
AMY GOODMAN : How did the two of you meet, Pete and Oren?
PETE SEEGER : He came to speak for the Clearwater annual meeting, the little—little organization we have trying to clean up the Hudson River. And he came to speak to us. And he—when I heard him, I said, &quot;This man—this man should be heard by everybody.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Oren Lyons, on this Indigenous People&#8217;s Day, what are your thoughts you&#8217;d like to share with our viewers and listeners and readers around the world?
OREN LYONS : Well, as I listened to Pete sing, recognizing the spirit in all of us, the spirit is powerful, and the will, the will to continue and do what has to be done, and responsibility for adults to act like adults, for leaders to act like leaders, and to take away from the corporate powers that are currently in charge of the direction of this Earth and return it back to the people, where it belongs, and also to protect, really be responsible for seven generations of life coming. That&#8217;s our mission, and that&#8217;s my mission. It&#8217;s always been our mission. The mission is peace. The mission is forever. And the mission is friendship, and to understand that the human family is a family—doesn&#8217;t matter what color you are. You can change blood. You can&#8217;t get any closer than that. And people should understand that.
AMY GOODMAN : What does it mean to be the faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation? And tell us the history of the Onondaga.
OREN LYONS : The Onondaga Nation was the central fire that the peacemaker had to deal with. The Todadaho was the fiercest of all people, and he changed that man. He changed that man. And that is—that proves that no one is above redemption. I don&#8217;t care what you do, you can change. And that was a severe lesson to everybody. We remember that. So, today, the Todadaho, Sid Hill, will be up here meeting and greeting with the people and carrying these words of peace. Over a thousand years ago, he was the fiercest, the fiercest enemy of peace. And so, the ideas of democracy, the ideas of leadership by the people and for the people, those are old words. Those belong to our confederation and were taken on by the new government. I think they stalled in several places, but the essence is still there. The essence is still there, but it needs the work of the people. The people have to stand. The people have to move. It&#8217;s they who hold the power. They hold the authority, and always did and always will. So, they have to understand that. So, as long as you&#8217;re waiting for somebody to tell you to do something, you&#8217;re going to wait a long time.
AMY GOODMAN : The significance of the Idle No More movement in Canada?
OREN LYONS : Oh, yes.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain what it is?
OREN LYONS : Well, it&#8217;s four women, three Indian women and one white woman, who just said, &quot;This is enough, and we are not going to stand by. We&#8217;re not going to be idle no more.&quot; And they challenged the leadership of Canada. And Prime Minister Harper has really challenged the future of people in opening up this huge open-pit mining, you know, that Keystone pipeline, is so intent. All about commerce, nothing about the future. And so, they took a stand, and they said, &quot;We&#8217;re not idle anymore.&quot; And, of course, the media never followed it, but it went around the world, and there are people around the world responding to that. It&#8217;s a grassroots movement, and it&#8217;s a lesson in what you can do if you make your stand. And so, that&#8217;s what common people do: lock their arms and stand.
AMY GOODMAN : Andy Mager, Reuters is reporting Chesapeake Energy has abandoned a two-year legal battle to retain leases on thousands of acres of land in New York, where it planned to drill for natural gas using, you know, the controversial technique of fracking, provided the state lift a ban on the practice. Do you know about this and what the significance of this is?
ANDY MAGER : It was announced to our camp that they were abandoning the leases a couple of days ago, not with that last caveat about New York state lifting the moratorium. So, obviously, we would oppose the lifting of the moratorium. We welcome them abandoning the leases and stopping harassing the people of New York state to try to get them to allow this drilling technique.
To get back to what Oren was saying, you know, the purpose of this journey down the Hudson, and the larger campaign of which it&#8217;s a part, is to sow seeds to build a social movement, a movement powerful enough to compel New York state and the United States to live up to these treaties and, in doing so, to honor the Earth. And we have been overjoyed by the response we&#8217;ve received all the way down the Hudson River from individual citizens, from local government leaders and civic organizations, welcoming what we are doing, providing support, aligning with this broader mission, that we need to honor the treaties that we have signed, to live up to them after 400 years, and to work together for a better future. So we welcome people to join with us today at the pier, in the future through our website, Facebook, etc., because this is not—this landing in New York is in some ways a ending of the paddling journey, but the beginning of a broader movement that we will be looking for support from progressive people, far and wide, to engage in.
AMY GOODMAN : Pete Seeger, I wanted to get your assessment of President Obama. I mean, look at this moment in time. You sang at his inauguration, that remarkable moment, &quot;This Land is Your Land.&quot; We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington. Actually, President Obama will be standing in the same place as Dr. King did when he delivered his speech, and will give a speech on August 28th in front of the Lincoln Memorial. You were not at the March on Washington, were you?
PETE SEEGER : No, I took my family—my wife and I took our three children out of school, and in 10-and-a-half months we visited 28 countries around the world, small countries. We visited Somoa in the Pacific, and then Australia, Indonesia. And her father joined us. He saw his own family again for the first time in 50 years. He helped the American war effort. He did very dangerous things. He wrote to Washington right after Pearl Harbor, says, &quot;The only hope for Japan is to get rid of the militarists,&quot; because fascists had taken over Japan just like they took over Germany.
AMY GOODMAN : Where did you hear about Dr. King&#8217;s speech, &quot;I Have a Dream&quot;? Do you remember?
PETE SEEGER : I read it. I&#8217;m a readaholic. And—
AMY GOODMAN : So, somewhere in that journey?
PETE SEEGER : And he was surely one of the most astonishing speakers in the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Did you ever get to meet him?
PETE SEEGER : I met him only twice—once very briefly when he—just a year after the bus boycott, where he first became well known—
AMY GOODMAN : In Montgomery?
PETE SEEGER : No, he came to the little school in the Highlands of Tennessee, called the Highlander Folk School. And that&#8217;s where he heard me sing &quot;We Shall Overcome.&quot; And then, I was singing a few songs in the street outside the United Nations when he made perhaps the most—one of the two most important speeches. He said, &quot;I have to face the fact that my own country is the greatest purveyor of violence. We must get out of Vietnam.&quot; I&#8217;m sure—
AMY GOODMAN : You were at Riverside Church, April 4th, 1967?
PETE SEEGER : No, I was in the streets, where he gave the same speech a day later outside the United Nations. And I was up on the speakers&#8217; stand when I saw a black car inching its way through the crowd. And I heard people: &quot;He&#8217;s here! He&#8217;s here!&quot; He got 20 feet away from the speakers&#8217; stand, and the door opened, and Dr. King got out. It took six strong men to help him—to make it possible for him to make 20 feet from the car to the speakers&#8217; stand. I said, &quot;How can anybody live with this kind of adulation?&quot; Well, I&#8217;m sure—I have absolutely no proof, but I think that&#8217;s when LBJ lost his temper. He said, &quot;After all I did for that guy, look what he does to me!&quot; He probably picked up the phone to J. Edgar Hoover, said, &quot;Do what you want!&quot; Slam!
AMY GOODMAN : What was Dr. King&#8217;s reaction to hearing you sing &quot;We Shall Overcome&quot; at the Highlander Center?
PETE SEEGER : Oh, he was sitting in the backseat of a car, while a woman I know, wonderful woman, was driving him to some speaking engagement up in Kentucky. He said, &quot;&#39;We Shall Overcome,&#39; that really—song really sticks with you, doesn&#8217;t it?&quot;
He—at only age 14, some man wrote a letter to the big newspaper in Atlanta: &quot;Why do Negroes want to marry white? Don&#8217;t they know that we&#8217;re supposed to be separate people?&quot; And this 14-year-old writes a letter to the editor of the newspaper: &quot;Surely, Mr. So-and-So, whoever wrote this letter, must know that if there are people in America of mixed ancestry, it&#8217;s not because Negroes want to marry whites, but because of aggressive white males taking advantage of defenseless black females.&quot; In one sentence, he said what most people would have taken paragraphs to say.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Martin Luther King when he was 14 years old?
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : What is your assessment of President Obama?
PETE SEEGER : I wish that he had made so few compromises that he would not have gotten re-elected. And then, four years later, he would have gotten re-elected, because the contrast between what he did and the people who took over for the four years in between would have been obvious to the whole world.
AMY GOODMAN : Well, I know that you all have to go to the pier to meet the rowers who are coming up the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : We do.
AMY GOODMAN : But I was wondering if you could take us out on a song, maybe the hammer song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; which was sung by Peter, Paul and Mary at the March on Washington, your song, 50 years ago, August 28th.
PETE SEEGER : Well, Woody Guthrie was one of the greatest songwriters I knew, but the bass in The Weavers, a man named Lee Hays from Arkansas, was another one of the geniuses. And he knew that a lot of old gospel songs, just change one word, and you&#8217;ve got a new verse. So he sent me four verses, says, &quot;Pete, can you make up a tune?&quot; I tried to, but it wasn&#8217;t as good a tune as it should have been. And Peter, Paul and Mary improved my tune. And then the song went around the world. Marlene Dietrich toured the world, and—no, she sang &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; But the song, &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; went all sorts of places that I could never go, and I&#8217;m very glad.
[singing] If I had a hammer,
I&#8217;d hammer in the morning,
I&#8217;d hammer in the evening,
All over this land,
I&#8217;d hammer out danger,
Hammer out a warning,
Hammer out love between,
All of my brothers,
Oh, a woman said, &quot;Make that &#39;My brothers and my sisters.&#39;&quot; Lee says, &quot;It doesn&#8217;t roll off the tongue so well. But she insisted. He said, &quot;How about &#39;All of my siblings&#39;?&quot; She didn&#8217;t think that was funny.
[singing] All over this land.
If I had a song,
Don&#8217;t need to sing the whole song. You can sing it to yourself, whether you&#8217;re driving a car or washing the dishes or just singing to your kids. We haven&#8217;t mentioned children much on this program, but it may be children realizing that you can&#8217;t live without love, you can&#8217;t live without fun and laughter, you can&#8217;t live without friends—and I say, &quot;Long live teachers of children,&quot; because they can show children how they can save the world.
AMY GOODMAN : Can we end with &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; for the children?
PETE SEEGER : No. You sing it.
AMY GOODMAN : I wanted to end on a lovely note.
PETE SEEGER : No. I&#8217;ve sung lots of songs. And the other day, a group of Japanese Americans remembered Hiroshima, and I sang four short verses.
[singing] We come and stand at every door
But none can hear my silent tread
I knock and yet remain unseen
For I am dead, for I am dead.
I&#8217;m only seven, although I died
In Hiroshima long ago.
I&#8217;m seven now, as I was then.
When children die, they do not grow.
My hair was scorched by swirling flame;
My eyes grew dim, my eyes grew blind.
Death came and turned my bones to dust,
And that was scattered by the wind.
I need no fruit, I need no rice.
I need no sweets, not even bread;
I ask for nothing for myself,
For I am dead, for I am dead.
All that I ask is that for peace
You fight today, you fight today.
So that the children of this world
May live and grow and laugh and play!
AMY GOODMAN : Pete, thank you so much, and especially on this day, August 9th, the anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki 68 years ago, three days after the bombing of Hiroshima 68 years ago.
PETE SEEGER : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And now you head to greet the rowers coming down the Hudson.
PETE SEEGER : Mm-hmm, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : And I thank you so much for being with us. Peter Seeger, Oren Lyons, Andy Mager, thanks for giving us a gift today.
ANDY MAGER : Thank you, Amy.
OREN LYONS : Thank you, Amy. nonadulttv-gDemocracy Now!NewsOnondaga Leader Oren Lyons, Pete Seeger on International Day of the World's Indigenous Peopleshttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/8/9/onondaga_leader_oren_lyons_pete_seeger
tag:democracynow.org,2013-08-09:en/story/63e670 AMY GOODMAN : Today marks the International Day of the World&#8217;s Indigenous Peoples. First proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago, the day focuses on indigenous people&#8217;s alliances, honoring treaties and respecting cultures. Events in New York kick off this morning when more than 200 Native and non-Natives are set to to arrive in New York after a two-week journey paddling in canoes down the Hudson River. They&#8217;ll be met by Dutch Consul General Rob de Vos, representatives of Native nations, and many supporters, before heading to the United Nations for a series of events. The canoers began their journey in Albany, the capital of New York, and paddled over 140 miles on a voyage to commemorate the first agreement between the early European Dutch settlers and the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois Confederacy, known as the Two Row Wampum Treaty. This is Chief Jake Edwards of the Onondaga Nation explaining its significance.
CHIEF JACK EDWARDS : In the Two Row Wampum, it&#8217;s stated, all the teachings that we shared from the Great Law of Peace, we shared with these newcomers to the forest. And so, in doing so, we also told them to be respectful of all and only take from Mother Earth as what you need to survive. And so this agreement came about. And what the Two Row represents is the Haudenosaunee people, Onkwehonwe, in their canoe, traveling down the river of life alongside the newcomers in their vessel, their ship.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Chief Jake Edwards of the Onondaga Nation. Canoers who are part of the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign say environmental conservation is at the heart of the campaign. Many Native organizers are working closely with their neighbors at Onondaga Lake and along the Saint Lawrence River to protest fracking, the controversial method used to extract methane gas from shale.
For more, we&#8217;re joined by three participants in the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign. Oren Lyons is with us, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. He sits on the Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs, also helped establish the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in 1982.
Andy Mager is with us, project coordinator for the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign and a member of Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation.
And we&#8217;re joined by Pete Seeger, the legendary 94-year-old folk singer, banjo player, storyteller and activist. For over 60 years, he&#8217;s been an American icon, the author or co-author of so many songs, including &quot;Where Have All the Flowers Gone?&quot; &quot;If I Had a Hammer,&quot; &quot;Turn! Turn! Turn!&quot; Pete Seeger has also been a longtime supporter of Native American rights.
We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Oren Lyons, let&#8217;s begin with you. What is the significance of this day? Why the paddling up the Hudson River to the United Nations today?
OREN LYONS : Today we&#8217;re celebrating 400 years of association with our friends from across the great waters. Four hundred years ago, we met with the Dutch on the issues of trade, peace, friendship. And we agreed at that time that we would establish a relationship of peace and friendship for as long as the sun rises in the east, sets in the west, as long as the rivers run downhill, and as long as the grass is green. Grass is quite green today, and the rivers are running, and so is the sun rising. So here we are, 400 years. We&#8217;re going to have a 400-year-old handshake at—being met by the kingdom of the Netherlands, Attorney General de Vos and his wife, representing the counterparts of that original meeting, which is the grandfather, I would say, of all treaties made after that. This was the original agreement.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you explain? We just watched Chief Jake Edwards holding the treaty, which is not words, it&#8217;s beads.
OREN LYONS : Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN : Explain.
OREN LYONS : Wampum and the belts and the strings that we&#8217;ve used over these many centuries was at that time the political currency of the time. That&#8217;s how things were agreed upon. That was our process. And over that past 300 or 400 years, it was used by everyone, all the Spanish, whether it&#8217;s English, whether it&#8217;s French—the peace and friendship and also what we call the Covenant Chain, to be polished again and again. The depiction of the two vessels side-by-side going down the river of life in peace and friendship, tied together with the Covenant Chain of peace—three links: peace, friendship and as long as the grass is green. So, we&#8217;re here celebrating the 400th anniversary of that. The past 400 years, of course, subject to all of this historic events of that time, and yet here we are. And yet, the issue remains, peace and friendship.
And I think, from our perspective, we&#8217;re concerned about the future. We&#8217;re concerned about the Earth, seven generations hence, and the conduct of people. And so, we wonder, how do you instruct seven billion people as to the relationship to the Earth? Because unless they understand that and relate the way they should be, future is pretty dim for the human species.
AMY GOODMAN : Pete Seeger, as Oren Lyons is speaking, you&#8217;re nodding your head &quot;yes.&quot; Why are you involved with the Two [Row] Wampum campaign?
PETE SEEGER : I was fortunate to meet a man named Ray Fadden, who was a teacher on the Mohawk reservation near the Saint Lawrence River way back in 1950. And he taught me things. I was trying to run a little festival in the Adirondacks, and he came there with some of the students from his reservation. I remember asking him if he would teach me one of his songs. He said, &quot;Pete, our songs are sacred to us, and you should not even try and sing them, except here&#8217;s a Seneca canoe song. I&#8217;d be glad if you learned that.&quot; So, for 65 years, I guess, I&#8217;ve been singing the Seneca canoe song if I&#8217;m ever asked about Native American culture.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you sing it now?
PETE SEEGER : Ka iyo wa jin eh. Yo ho-oh.
Hey. Yo ho.
Ka iyo wa jin eh.
Ka iyo wa jin eh. Eh!
Ka iyo wa jin eh.
Yo-ho. Hey.
Ka iyo wa jin eh.
Ka iyo wa jin eh. Eh!
And it keeps on going.
AMY GOODMAN : You have said that we should look not across the ocean for role models.
PETE SEEGER : An extraordinary man—no one knows exactly how many hundreds of years ago—paddled out of Lake Ontario and went to a little village, the first village he came to, and said, &quot;My name is Deganawida, but you can call me the peacemaker.&quot; Well, the local war chief says, &quot;Get out of here. That&#8217;s women&#8217;s talk. I am Tadodaho, the war chief.&quot; So this young man went to another village, and there he met a man named Hiawatha, who was grieving for his wife and daughter who had died. Longfellow used his name, but Longfellow was actually telling a different story.
But these two men now went from village to village to village and described a very interesting form of keeping the peace. These people, the Six Nations—the Senecas in the far west near Lake Ohio; the Canandaiguas, maybe 40 miles east; Cayugas, another 40 miles east—Lake Cayuga, that&#8217;s where Cornell is; the Onondagas, where Chief Oren Lyons is from; and the Tuscaroras and the Mohawks, some of them as far east near Vermont—and they started fighting with each other. And the system that this man, Deganawida, proposed was that the women, who were the heads of the clans—they know whose baby is whose—they appoint men who will meet once a year, and they&#8217;ll meet in the longhouse under a great tree of peace. And the white roots of peace will go east and west and north and south. And the eagle in the top of the tree would look for danger from afar. But they would discuss, instead of fighting, what were the things that people disagreed on. And it had an interesting rule: Nothing would be voted on unless it was slept on at least one night. I think that should be done more often. You don&#8217;t vote until you&#8217;ve slept on it at least one night.
And at one time, Deganawida predicts an eclipse. He says, &quot;Tomorrow, the afternoon, the sky will darken itself, as proof that we&#8217;re speaking the truth.&quot; And it did darken itself. He must have watched exactly where the moon and the sun were rising and setting, and says, &quot;They&#8217;re going to touch each other.&quot; And, finally, this extraordinary system of government took place. Deganawida stuck around. Nobody knows exactly how long, whether it was half a year or two years. But he stayed to make sure that this system was working, and then he got into his canoe and paddled north into Lake Ontario, and nobody ever saw him again. But isn&#8217;t that interesting? I told the story more or less correctly, didn&#8217;t I?
OREN LYONS : More or less. More or less.
AMY GOODMAN : Andy Mager, this campaign that you have helped to organize, why are you involved, as a non-Native? And the significance of it, what you&#8217;re focusing on?
ANDY MAGER : Well, the campaign is about justice. It&#8217;s about marking this 400th anniversary of the treaty that Oren talked about and calling on our people, on the people of the United States, the people of New York state, the non-native people of the world, to look at how we&#8217;ve behaved, how we haven&#8217;t honor this treaty. We haven&#8217;t abided by it. We have knocked the Haudenosaunee people out of their boat. We have sought to steer their boat. We have tried to control their way of life, in complete violation of this treaty. So it&#8217;s a call to us to look backwards, but to look backwards to look forward, to see how do we work together to re-establish peace and social justice, and in doing so, to preserve the environment. As Oren mentioned so eloquently, we&#8217;re in deep ecological crisis, and if we don&#8217;t shift our ways, the future for all of us looks very bleak.
AMY GOODMAN : Between Pete Seeger and Oren Lyons, you&#8217;ve got 177 years. You&#8217;ve seen a lot of history with the American government and Native Americans. Oren Lyons, this is how the Haudenosaunee reportedly replied to the initial Dutch treaty proposal: quote, &quot;You say [that] you are our Father and I am your Son. We say, &#39;We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.&#39; This wampum belt confirms our words. ... Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other&#8217;s vessel.&quot; Can you talk more about the treaty and what you think happened to it, whether it was honored over 400 years, and the significance of the belt?
OREN LYONS : Well, at this particular time, the Haudenosaunee, the Onondaga Nation, the Tonawanda Seneca and the Tuscarora Nation and the Cayuga Nation are probably the last independent governments still in charge of land and not under the processes of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada. We still raise our leaders as we did before, by consensus and by agreement and by, first of all, having the women choose the leaders. The women have a great deal of responsibility in this process, in that they not only choose the leaders, but the leaders have to be agreed upon by consensus by the family. And until she finds that leader that finds that consensus, then they will agree to raise that leader. And then the Council of Chiefs will also have that right of consensus. If they don&#8217;t agree, she has to go back again. And finally, it goes to the council. The Grand Council itself, Six Nations, will challenge that, as well. So, this leader is going to be vetted many, many times. And clearly, she has to make a good choice. She also has the power of recall, and she can remove that title for malfeasance of office, for violations against women or children, or any kind of violation that the—the structure of the league is very old, and it&#8217;s a continuum and probably is the original democracy that so inspired Ben Franklin and the Continental Congress to follow our lead. And we were in discussion with them many, many years and closely associated with their development.
PETE SEEGER : This—
AMY GOODMAN : Could you—yes, Pete Seeger?
PETE SEEGER : This is an extraordinary thing. Twenty-three years after Benjamin Franklin received a letter describing this method of government, the Constitutional Convention for the United States was about to break up. The Jeffersonians didn&#8217;t want to talk to the Hamiltonians, the North and the South, and so on. And Franklin holds up this piece of paper, saying, &quot;These are people we call savages because their ways are different from ours, but they have kept the peace for hundreds of years. And if they can, why can&#8217;t 13 English colonies?&quot; And he shamed the Constitutional Convention to keep on talking and find compromises that they could make a constitution.
OREN LYONS : Yeah, it is the foundation of this United States.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about the significance of the headdress you have in front of you?
OREN LYONS : Well, I talked about the eagle on top of the tree of peace. That&#8217;s this feather. The eagle represents a spiritual leadership of the animal world for the birds and the leader of the birds, and all animals have leaders. The deer is the leader of all the animals for four legs. And so, the feathers of this powerful entity, who carries our words the highest of any bird, flies the highest and carries our words the closest to the creator. And it is our principal messenger of peace. And so, we revere these feathers, and we revere this representation of our—of the bird nations. And we carry it close to us. And our staffs are always with these great birds&#8217; feathers that remind us of our responsibility.
AMY GOODMAN : Andy, can you talk about the horseback ride today?
ANDY MAGER : Sure. The Dakota Unity Riders, who have come from Manitoba, Canada, traveling over 4,000 miles, though not continuously on horseback that journey, have sort of joined with the Two Row campaign. They started as independent initiatives, and we realized that there was much in common, so they have joined us in Troy, New York, before we started paddling down the Hudson, in Catskill, in Beacon, and we expect them to be joining with us at some point today, although there were problems with the permit. There will be a march today after our paddlers—our paddlers are on the water today now in their final journey into Pier 96 in Manhattan. They&#8217;ll land there. We&#8217;ll have a welcoming from the Dutch consul general, from our congressman based in central New York, Dan Maffei, and others. Then we&#8217;ll march across Manhattan to the United Nations, where we&#8217;ll be welcomed by the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Somehow in that process, the Unity Riders will join us. The NYPD would not give a permit, at least the last I had heard, for them to walk beside our march, so there&#8217;s a little bit still up in the air about that. But there&#8217;s very much a shared sense of unity, of renewal, of call for respect for Native rights at the core of both campaigns, and we&#8217;re delighted to work with them.
AMY GOODMAN : How does fracking fit in with this story, Oren Lyons?
OREN LYONS : Well, of course—
AMY GOODMAN : Hydraulic fracturing.
ANDY MAGER : Water—water is the first law of life. And looking through the generations ahead of us and protecting their future and being responsible to that, fracking, of course, impacts water amazingly—millions and millions of gallons of fresh water being used and absolutely contaminated beyond any point of redemption. And so, it&#8217;s an attack. It&#8217;s an attack on the future lives of our children and everybody else&#8217;s children, as well, and life, in general. The laws of nature are such that you will suffer in direct ratio, in direct ratio to your transgressions. Simple as that. And there&#8217;s no—and people should understand this. There is no mercy in nature, none whatsoever, only the law, only the rules. And if you follow those laws and rules, you have regeneration again and again. And if you want to challenge those laws, then you suffer the consequence. And that&#8217;s where we are right now. We are—so, fracking is probably the most damaging challenge that America has today in terms of its future.
AMY GOODMAN : Pete Seeger, would you like to weigh in on fracking?
PETE SEEGER : That&#8217;s absolutely true. It&#8217;s incredible that people say, &quot;Oh, I need a job. I&#8217;ll work for the fracking.&quot; But to get a little gas to run cars or factories, we&#8217;ll destroy the future for our children and our grandchildren. Horrifying.
AMY GOODMAN : Oren Lyons and Andy Mager, I want to thank you for being with us. Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. Andy Mager, one of the organizers of the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign. We&#8217;re going to go to break, and when we come back, I want to speak a few more minutes to Pete Seeger, and then we&#8217;re going to combine together for a post-show conversation, which we&#8217;ll post online at democracynow.org. Stay with us on this Indigenous People&#8217;s Day. AMYGOODMAN: Today marks the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples. First proclaimed by the United Nations 20 years ago, the day focuses on indigenous people’s alliances, honoring treaties and respecting cultures. Events in New York kick off this morning when more than 200 Native and non-Natives are set to to arrive in New York after a two-week journey paddling in canoes down the Hudson River. They’ll be met by Dutch Consul General Rob de Vos, representatives of Native nations, and many supporters, before heading to the United Nations for a series of events. The canoers began their journey in Albany, the capital of New York, and paddled over 140 miles on a voyage to commemorate the first agreement between the early European Dutch settlers and the Haudenosaunee, the Iroquois Confederacy, known as the Two Row Wampum Treaty. This is Chief Jake Edwards of the Onondaga Nation explaining its significance.

CHIEFJACKEDWARDS: In the Two Row Wampum, it’s stated, all the teachings that we shared from the Great Law of Peace, we shared with these newcomers to the forest. And so, in doing so, we also told them to be respectful of all and only take from Mother Earth as what you need to survive. And so this agreement came about. And what the Two Row represents is the Haudenosaunee people, Onkwehonwe, in their canoe, traveling down the river of life alongside the newcomers in their vessel, their ship.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Chief Jake Edwards of the Onondaga Nation. Canoers who are part of the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign say environmental conservation is at the heart of the campaign. Many Native organizers are working closely with their neighbors at Onondaga Lake and along the Saint Lawrence River to protest fracking, the controversial method used to extract methane gas from shale.

For more, we’re joined by three participants in the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign. Oren Lyons is with us, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. He sits on the Onondaga Nation Council of Chiefs, also helped establish the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Peoples in 1982.

Andy Mager is with us, project coordinator for the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign and a member of Neighbors of the Onondaga Nation.

And we’re joined by Pete Seeger, the legendary 94-year-old folk singer, banjo player, storyteller and activist. For over 60 years, he’s been an American icon, the author or co-author of so many songs, including "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?" "If I Had a Hammer," "Turn! Turn! Turn!" Pete Seeger has also been a longtime supporter of Native American rights.

We welcome you all to Democracy Now! Oren Lyons, let’s begin with you. What is the significance of this day? Why the paddling up the Hudson River to the United Nations today?

ORENLYONS: Today we’re celebrating 400 years of association with our friends from across the great waters. Four hundred years ago, we met with the Dutch on the issues of trade, peace, friendship. And we agreed at that time that we would establish a relationship of peace and friendship for as long as the sun rises in the east, sets in the west, as long as the rivers run downhill, and as long as the grass is green. Grass is quite green today, and the rivers are running, and so is the sun rising. So here we are, 400 years. We’re going to have a 400-year-old handshake at—being met by the kingdom of the Netherlands, Attorney General de Vos and his wife, representing the counterparts of that original meeting, which is the grandfather, I would say, of all treaties made after that. This was the original agreement.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you explain? We just watched Chief Jake Edwards holding the treaty, which is not words, it’s beads.

ORENLYONS: Yeah.

AMYGOODMAN: Explain.

ORENLYONS: Wampum and the belts and the strings that we’ve used over these many centuries was at that time the political currency of the time. That’s how things were agreed upon. That was our process. And over that past 300 or 400 years, it was used by everyone, all the Spanish, whether it’s English, whether it’s French—the peace and friendship and also what we call the Covenant Chain, to be polished again and again. The depiction of the two vessels side-by-side going down the river of life in peace and friendship, tied together with the Covenant Chain of peace—three links: peace, friendship and as long as the grass is green. So, we’re here celebrating the 400th anniversary of that. The past 400 years, of course, subject to all of this historic events of that time, and yet here we are. And yet, the issue remains, peace and friendship.

And I think, from our perspective, we’re concerned about the future. We’re concerned about the Earth, seven generations hence, and the conduct of people. And so, we wonder, how do you instruct seven billion people as to the relationship to the Earth? Because unless they understand that and relate the way they should be, future is pretty dim for the human species.

AMYGOODMAN: Pete Seeger, as Oren Lyons is speaking, you’re nodding your head "yes." Why are you involved with the Two [Row] Wampum campaign?

PETESEEGER: I was fortunate to meet a man named Ray Fadden, who was a teacher on the Mohawk reservation near the Saint Lawrence River way back in 1950. And he taught me things. I was trying to run a little festival in the Adirondacks, and he came there with some of the students from his reservation. I remember asking him if he would teach me one of his songs. He said, "Pete, our songs are sacred to us, and you should not even try and sing them, except here’s a Seneca canoe song. I’d be glad if you learned that." So, for 65 years, I guess, I’ve been singing the Seneca canoe song if I’m ever asked about Native American culture.

AMYGOODMAN: You have said that we should look not across the ocean for role models.

PETESEEGER: An extraordinary man—no one knows exactly how many hundreds of years ago—paddled out of Lake Ontario and went to a little village, the first village he came to, and said, "My name is Deganawida, but you can call me the peacemaker." Well, the local war chief says, "Get out of here. That’s women’s talk. I am Tadodaho, the war chief." So this young man went to another village, and there he met a man named Hiawatha, who was grieving for his wife and daughter who had died. Longfellow used his name, but Longfellow was actually telling a different story.

But these two men now went from village to village to village and described a very interesting form of keeping the peace. These people, the Six Nations—the Senecas in the far west near Lake Ohio; the Canandaiguas, maybe 40 miles east; Cayugas, another 40 miles east—Lake Cayuga, that’s where Cornell is; the Onondagas, where Chief Oren Lyons is from; and the Tuscaroras and the Mohawks, some of them as far east near Vermont—and they started fighting with each other. And the system that this man, Deganawida, proposed was that the women, who were the heads of the clans—they know whose baby is whose—they appoint men who will meet once a year, and they’ll meet in the longhouse under a great tree of peace. And the white roots of peace will go east and west and north and south. And the eagle in the top of the tree would look for danger from afar. But they would discuss, instead of fighting, what were the things that people disagreed on. And it had an interesting rule: Nothing would be voted on unless it was slept on at least one night. I think that should be done more often. You don’t vote until you’ve slept on it at least one night.

And at one time, Deganawida predicts an eclipse. He says, "Tomorrow, the afternoon, the sky will darken itself, as proof that we’re speaking the truth." And it did darken itself. He must have watched exactly where the moon and the sun were rising and setting, and says, "They’re going to touch each other." And, finally, this extraordinary system of government took place. Deganawida stuck around. Nobody knows exactly how long, whether it was half a year or two years. But he stayed to make sure that this system was working, and then he got into his canoe and paddled north into Lake Ontario, and nobody ever saw him again. But isn’t that interesting? I told the story more or less correctly, didn’t I?

ORENLYONS: More or less. More or less.

AMYGOODMAN: Andy Mager, this campaign that you have helped to organize, why are you involved, as a non-Native? And the significance of it, what you’re focusing on?

ANDYMAGER: Well, the campaign is about justice. It’s about marking this 400th anniversary of the treaty that Oren talked about and calling on our people, on the people of the United States, the people of New York state, the non-native people of the world, to look at how we’ve behaved, how we haven’t honor this treaty. We haven’t abided by it. We have knocked the Haudenosaunee people out of their boat. We have sought to steer their boat. We have tried to control their way of life, in complete violation of this treaty. So it’s a call to us to look backwards, but to look backwards to look forward, to see how do we work together to re-establish peace and social justice, and in doing so, to preserve the environment. As Oren mentioned so eloquently, we’re in deep ecological crisis, and if we don’t shift our ways, the future for all of us looks very bleak.

AMYGOODMAN: Between Pete Seeger and Oren Lyons, you’ve got 177 years. You’ve seen a lot of history with the American government and Native Americans. Oren Lyons, this is how the Haudenosaunee reportedly replied to the initial Dutch treaty proposal: quote, "You say [that] you are our Father and I am your Son. We say, 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.' This wampum belt confirms our words. ... Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other’s vessel." Can you talk more about the treaty and what you think happened to it, whether it was honored over 400 years, and the significance of the belt?

ORENLYONS: Well, at this particular time, the Haudenosaunee, the Onondaga Nation, the Tonawanda Seneca and the Tuscarora Nation and the Cayuga Nation are probably the last independent governments still in charge of land and not under the processes of the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C., or the Department of Indian Affairs in Canada. We still raise our leaders as we did before, by consensus and by agreement and by, first of all, having the women choose the leaders. The women have a great deal of responsibility in this process, in that they not only choose the leaders, but the leaders have to be agreed upon by consensus by the family. And until she finds that leader that finds that consensus, then they will agree to raise that leader. And then the Council of Chiefs will also have that right of consensus. If they don’t agree, she has to go back again. And finally, it goes to the council. The Grand Council itself, Six Nations, will challenge that, as well. So, this leader is going to be vetted many, many times. And clearly, she has to make a good choice. She also has the power of recall, and she can remove that title for malfeasance of office, for violations against women or children, or any kind of violation that the—the structure of the league is very old, and it’s a continuum and probably is the original democracy that so inspired Ben Franklin and the Continental Congress to follow our lead. And we were in discussion with them many, many years and closely associated with their development.

PETESEEGER: This—

AMYGOODMAN: Could you—yes, Pete Seeger?

PETESEEGER: This is an extraordinary thing. Twenty-three years after Benjamin Franklin received a letter describing this method of government, the Constitutional Convention for the United States was about to break up. The Jeffersonians didn’t want to talk to the Hamiltonians, the North and the South, and so on. And Franklin holds up this piece of paper, saying, "These are people we call savages because their ways are different from ours, but they have kept the peace for hundreds of years. And if they can, why can’t 13 English colonies?" And he shamed the Constitutional Convention to keep on talking and find compromises that they could make a constitution.

ORENLYONS: Yeah, it is the foundation of this United States.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of the headdress you have in front of you?

ORENLYONS: Well, I talked about the eagle on top of the tree of peace. That’s this feather. The eagle represents a spiritual leadership of the animal world for the birds and the leader of the birds, and all animals have leaders. The deer is the leader of all the animals for four legs. And so, the feathers of this powerful entity, who carries our words the highest of any bird, flies the highest and carries our words the closest to the creator. And it is our principal messenger of peace. And so, we revere these feathers, and we revere this representation of our—of the bird nations. And we carry it close to us. And our staffs are always with these great birds’ feathers that remind us of our responsibility.

AMYGOODMAN: Andy, can you talk about the horseback ride today?

ANDYMAGER: Sure. The Dakota Unity Riders, who have come from Manitoba, Canada, traveling over 4,000 miles, though not continuously on horseback that journey, have sort of joined with the Two Row campaign. They started as independent initiatives, and we realized that there was much in common, so they have joined us in Troy, New York, before we started paddling down the Hudson, in Catskill, in Beacon, and we expect them to be joining with us at some point today, although there were problems with the permit. There will be a march today after our paddlers—our paddlers are on the water today now in their final journey into Pier 96 in Manhattan. They’ll land there. We’ll have a welcoming from the Dutch consul general, from our congressman based in central New York, Dan Maffei, and others. Then we’ll march across Manhattan to the United Nations, where we’ll be welcomed by the U.N. Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Somehow in that process, the Unity Riders will join us. The NYPD would not give a permit, at least the last I had heard, for them to walk beside our march, so there’s a little bit still up in the air about that. But there’s very much a shared sense of unity, of renewal, of call for respect for Native rights at the core of both campaigns, and we’re delighted to work with them.

AMYGOODMAN: How does fracking fit in with this story, Oren Lyons?

ORENLYONS: Well, of course—

AMYGOODMAN: Hydraulic fracturing.

ANDYMAGER: Water—water is the first law of life. And looking through the generations ahead of us and protecting their future and being responsible to that, fracking, of course, impacts water amazingly—millions and millions of gallons of fresh water being used and absolutely contaminated beyond any point of redemption. And so, it’s an attack. It’s an attack on the future lives of our children and everybody else’s children, as well, and life, in general. The laws of nature are such that you will suffer in direct ratio, in direct ratio to your transgressions. Simple as that. And there’s no—and people should understand this. There is no mercy in nature, none whatsoever, only the law, only the rules. And if you follow those laws and rules, you have regeneration again and again. And if you want to challenge those laws, then you suffer the consequence. And that’s where we are right now. We are—so, fracking is probably the most damaging challenge that America has today in terms of its future.

AMYGOODMAN: Pete Seeger, would you like to weigh in on fracking?

PETESEEGER: That’s absolutely true. It’s incredible that people say, "Oh, I need a job. I’ll work for the fracking." But to get a little gas to run cars or factories, we’ll destroy the future for our children and our grandchildren. Horrifying.

AMYGOODMAN: Oren Lyons and Andy Mager, I want to thank you for being with us. Oren Lyons, faithkeeper of the Onondaga Nation. Andy Mager, one of the organizers of the Two Row Wampum Renewal Campaign. We’re going to go to break, and when we come back, I want to speak a few more minutes to Pete Seeger, and then we’re going to combine together for a post-show conversation, which we’ll post online at democracynow.org. Stay with us on this Indigenous People’s Day.

]]>
Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:00:00 -0400Ríos Montt Guilty of Genocide: Are Guatemalan President Pérez Molina, U.S. Officials Next?http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/13/ros_montt_guilty_of_genocide_are
tag:democracynow.org,2013-05-13:en/story/d9a6c0 AMY GOODMAN : In an historic verdict, former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was found guilty Friday of genocide and crimes against humanity and was sentenced to 80 years in prison. Judge Yassmin Barrios announced the verdict on Friday.
JUDGE YASSMIN BARRIOS : [translated] By unanimous decision, the court declares that the accused, José Efraín Ríos Montt, is responsible as the author of the crime of genocide. He is responsible as the author of the crimes against humanity committed against the life and integrity of the civilian residents of the villages and hamlets located in Santa Maria Nebaj, San Juan Cotzal and San Gaspar Chajul. Immediate detention is ordered in order to assure the result of this court process and because of the nature of the crimes committed for which he has been condemned. I hereby order he enter prison directly.
AMY GOODMAN : Former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was found guilty of overseeing the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala&#8217;s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. Over the past two months, nearly a hundred witnesses testified during the trial, describing massacres, torture and rape by state forces.
Also on trial was General José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez, Ríos Montt&#8217;s head of intelligence. He was found not guilty of the same charges.
Ríos Montt becomes the first former head of state to be found guilty of genocide in his or her own country. Ríos Montt was a close ally of the United States. Former President Ronald Reagan once called him, quote, &quot;a man of great personal integrity.&quot;
After the verdict, Judge Barrios ordered the attorney general to launch an immediate investigation of &quot;all others&quot; connected to the crimes.
JUDGE YASSMIN BARRIOS : [translated] In continuation of the investigation on the part of the public ministry, the tribunal orders the public ministry to continue the investigation against more people who could have participated in the acts which are being judged.
AMY GOODMAN : The Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchú, who attended the trial, said there are others who should be tried for war crimes.
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] We are using the universal law. In other words, each person has inherent rights, and therefore it is a farce to say that if one is judged, all will be judged. We are not all. We are not things. If someone else is guilty of a crime, he is welcome to come and sit among the accused.
AMY GOODMAN : One former general implicated in abuses during the trial was Guatemala&#8217;s current president, Otto Pérez Molina. In the early 1980s, Pérez Molina was a military field commander in the northwest highlands, the Ixil region where the genocide occurred. At the time, he was operating under the alias &quot;Major Tito Arias.&quot; During the trial, one former army officer accused him of participating in executions.
To talk more about the historic trial and the significance of the verdict and sentence, we go to Guatemala City, where we&#8217;re joined by investigative reporter Allan Nairn, who covered the trial and attended it in Guatemala and has covered Guatemala extensively in the 1980s.
Allan Nairn, welcome back to Democracy Now! The significance of the verdict and the 80-year sentence?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, this was a breakthrough for the idea of enforcing the murder laws, a breakthrough for indigenous people against racism and for human civilization, because you can&#8217;t really claim to be civilized unless you can enforce the law against the most basic taboo: murder. And when the murders are committed by people at the top, usually they get away with it. Even in recent years, when there&#8217;s been some progress internationally, through institutions like the International Criminal Court, in prosecuting former heads of state, generals, for atrocities, almost always the only ones who get prosecuted are those who have lost the power struggle, those who no longer hold onto the reins of power or are no longer backed by the elites. But this case was different. In this case, a conviction was obtained against a general who represented the elite that triumphed, the military and the oligarchs who were responsible for perhaps up to a quarter million civilian murders, especially in the 1980s. Those are the people who still rule Guatemala. Yet, one of their number, General Ríos Montt, has now been convicted, because this was a prosecution that was initiated from below. And I don&#8217;t know of a case where that&#8217;s ever been done before. And this could be the beginning of something very big. I think this will be remembered for 500 years.
AMY GOODMAN : Can you talk about what Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted of, what exactly he did?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, he was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity. Ríos Montt ordered basically a program of extermination against civilians in the northwest highlands. That&#8217;s the area where the Mayan population of Guatemala is concentrated. They make up now, today, about half of the population of the country. And they formed—they were the part of the population that was most resistant to the rule of the army and to the rule of the oligarchy. They were pushing for land reform. They were pushing for rights to be recognized as equal citizens, which was something that, to this day, the Guatemalan oligarchy does not want to concede. And there was also a guerrilla movement that arose in the highlands.
And the Guatemalan army used a strategy of massacre. They would wipe out villages that did not submit to army rule. And the soldiers at the time described to me how they would conduct interrogations where they ask, &quot;Who here gives food to the guerrillas? Who here criticizes the government?&quot; And if they didn&#8217;t tell them what they wanted to hear, they would strangle them to death, or they would slit their throats. If the people being questioned were women and they were pregnant, they would slit them open with machetes. They would make people dig mass graves. They would then make them watch as they shot their neighbors in the head, in the face, in the back of the skull. And this just happened in village after village after village.
And it wasn&#8217;t an armed confrontation, because the villagers were unarmed. The soldiers were armed with American and Israeli weapons. The villagers were not. It was straight-up murder. It was part of a strategy that had been developed in conjunction with the U.S. In fact, the U.S. military attaché in Guatemala at the time, Colonel George Maynes, told me that this village—that he, himself, had helped develop this village sweep tactic. There was a U.S. trainer there, American Green Beret, who was training the military, and this is, in his words, how to destroy towns. And that&#8217;s what they did. And now Ríos Montt has been convicted for it.
AMY GOODMAN : Allan Nairn, can you describe the scene in the courtroom, from the point where the judge announced the verdict and the sentence and what happened in the courtroom and with Ríos Montt next?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, after the sentence, at one point, it looked like Ríos Montt was actually trying to flee the courtroom. It looked like his lawyers were trying to ease him out the door. And the judge started calling for security to stop Ríos Montt before he could sneak out the door.
The people in the audience started singing hymns. They started chanting, &quot;Justice! Justice! Justice!&quot; They chanted, &quot;Yassmin! Yassmin!&quot; That&#8217;s the name of the judge, Judge Barrios, who delivered the verdict. The Ixil people in the audience, many of whom had been survivors of these atrocities, who had risked their lives and come to Guatemala City to be witnesses in the trial, they stood up, and they put their arms across their—crossed their arms across the chest in the traditional way of saying thanks, and they all gave a slight bow in unison to pay tribute to the court.
The supporters of Ríos Montt, his family and the former military, some of them at certain points started shouting. They actually seemed most upset when the judge said that Ríos Montt would have to pay money reparations for his crimes. And, in fact, this morning there&#8217;s going to be a hearing on the reparations.
It took the—it took about 45 minutes for the prison police, who were supposed to drag Ríos Montt away, to get into the room. When they came in, I happened to be standing next to the door that they entered, and I asked, &quot;Are you the guys who are supposed to take away Ríos Montt?&quot; And you could see that they were extremely nervous. They were carrying long rifles. But, I mean, this is such an event that this is something they&#8217;ll be telling their grandchildren about.
AMY GOODMAN : And how did they take him out, after he tried to leave with his lawyers before they got there?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, there was a huge swarm of press. He was taken out, and at one point, when he was being put into the police vehicle, you could see that he was being held by the scruff of his neck by the police who were taking him away to prison.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re going to break and then come back to talk about a very interesting CNN interview with the current president of Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina, because that&#8217;s the question everyone is asking now: Does this point the finger at him, he who enjoys immunity while he is president of Guatemala? We&#8217;re speaking with investigative journalist Allan Nairn in Guatemala City, attended the trial of Ríos Montt. Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to 80 years in prison, where he sits today. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN : We continue our discussion about the historic verdict against former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, found guilty Friday of genocide and crimes against humanity, sentenced to 80 years in prison. Shortly after the verdict was announced, Guatemala&#8217;s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, was interviewed on CNN en Español, Spanish CNN . The host, Fernando del Rincón, asked the president about his time, Otto Pérez Molina&#8217;s time, as a military commander, but the line mysteriously cut off right after he asked the question.
FERNANDO DEL RINCÓN: [translated] In September 1982, Allan Nairn, an investigative journalist, had documentation where Major Tito Arias appeared in a video in which he said, quote, &quot;All the families,&quot; referencing to the families in the zone, &quot;are with the guerrillas.&quot; That&#8217;s what you said in September 1982 in the video in an interview with Allan Nairn, an investigative journalist from the United States, who, for certain, was there to be questioned in this process against Ríos Montt.
Let&#8217;s see if we&#8217;ll return with the president, to see if we&#8217;ll hear his response to that.
AMY GOODMAN : CNN host Fernando del Rincón returned to the question when the satellite was restored later in the interview.
FERNANDO DEL RINCÓN: [translated] In 1982, you appear in a video of Allan Nairn&#8217;s, which you have confirmed that you appeared, then with the name Major Tito Arias, where you say, &quot;All the families are with the guerrillas.&quot; What did you mean by that?
PRESIDENT OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Look, this is another case where a phrase is taken out of context of what we were talking about. I don&#8217;t think the thing is like that, Fernando.
FERNANDO DEL RINCÓN: [translated] No one is taking anything out of context. It is a video where it is a declaration you made.
PRESIDENT OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] It must be raised. Of course you were taking it out of context. I can tell you here now. If you want, I can explain. In 1982—and you can come here to verify it everywhere—the faction of the guerrillas that was called the Guerrilla Army of the Poor in that area involved in entire families, without respecting their ages, from the elderly to the smallest children. They were given pseudonyms. They took over the local power. They built what they called &quot;irregular local forces.&quot; They built what they called the &quot;clandestine local committee.&quot; The plan was to burn. Better said, it wasn&#8217;t just a plan; they actually did burn the entire municipalities, in order to—
FERNANDO DEL RINCÓN: [translated] Mr. President, Mr. President, I must interrupt you.
PRESIDENT OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] That was the context in which we were living.
AMY GOODMAN : That is Guatemala&#8217;s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, being interviewed by CNN en Español host Fernando del Rincón. We&#8217;re joined by investigative journalist Allan Nairn, who Rincón was referring to in his questioning of Pérez Molina. You interviewed the Guatemalan president, Pérez Molina, when he was known as Tito in the highlands, Allan—that&#8217;s what he&#8217;s referring to—more than two decades ago. Explain the significance of this line of questioning and what Pérez Molina&#8217;s role was at the time that Ríos Montt has now been convicted of crimes against humanity for.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, now this—now that Ríos Montt has been convicted for the actions that the Guatemalan army took in the highlands, the next logical step is to look at those who were implementing the plan of Ríos Montt. And the field commander on the ground at that time in the Ixil region was Pérez Molina, who is now the president. With the ruling of the judge, this is more than just a logical conclusion that Pérez Molina should be investigated. It&#8217;s now a legal mandate from the court, because the court said that the attorney general of Guatemala is ordered to investigate everyone who could have been involved in the crimes for which Ríos Montt was convicted.
When I met Pérez Molina in &#39;82, his troops were in the midst of a series of massacres, and the troops described how they would go into villages and execute civilians and torture civilians. At one point, one of the discussions with Pérez Molina took place as we were standing over the bodies of four guerrillas who the—his troops had captured. One of the soldiers said they had turned them over to Pérez Molina for interrogation after one of them had set off a grenade. The soldier said, &quot;Well, they didn&#39;t want to say anything in their interrogation.&quot; Another soldier told me that they, the military, had in fact finished those troops off. So, Pérez Molina is a definite logical target for criminal investigation, although at this moment, as president, he still enjoys legal immunity. But that lapses as soon as he leaves an official position.
AMY GOODMAN : CNN host Fernando del Rincón also asked President Otto Pérez Molina if he still denies there was a genocide after Friday&#8217;s verdict.
PRESIDENT OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Well, Fernando, I was speaking my personal opinion. And personally, I do not want this. And I said it also when I said that there was no genocide in Guatemala. And I repeat that now. Now, after there has been a judgment, which was in a lower court, today&#8217;s ruling is not as firm. We are respectful of what justice declares, and we will continue being respectful.
What I believe to be of value here, first of all, is that in Guatemala things are taking place that have never happened before. And that&#8217;s important. That is, a head of state today in a lower court having been convicted of a crime of this magnitude, which is the crime of genocide, is something that was unthinkable just 10 years ago here in Guatemala. Today what we are seeing is that justice can be exercised, justice can advance and move forward.
Now, this sentence is not so firm. The ruling shall be final when the appellate process runs its course. And I imagine those defending General Ríos will pursue these options, as he, himself, stated today after he saw the sentence and said he will appeal the sentence that was declared today.
AMY GOODMAN : CNN host Fernando del Rincón pressied President Molina further, asking him if he would go against the Guatemalan justice system and continue to deny that there&#8217;s a genocide.
PRESIDENT OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Well, that&#8217;s hypothetical, Fernando. What you are telling me is an assumption. What is missing here is that the higher courts declare on the matter. I am not a part of the defense of General Ríos, and I will not be part of the official defense of General Ríos. In any case, as an executive, as president of the country, what is my responsibility is to be respectful. And it is what I also ask of all Guatemalans, that we be law-abiding. Here, we have to respect and we need to strengthen all the levels of justice. And what I have always said, we want justice to be served, but we want it to be a justice that is not biased to one side nor the other, because it would cease to be justice. And then what would happen is that Guatemalans would lose rather than be strengthened. They would lose confidence in the justice system. I&#8217;m not going to issue an opinion at this time.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s the Guatemalan president, Otto Pérez Molina, being interviewed by CNN . Investigative journalist Allan Nairn, your response?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, at one point, it sounds like Pérez Molina is trying to take credit for the trial. And the trial happened against his will. And, in fact, just a few weeks ago, he intervened behind the scenes to help kill the trial, and it was only revived after an intense backlash from the Guatemalan public and also international pressure. This morning&#8217;s Wall Street Journal carries a piece that has additional evidence citing various residents of the areas that Pérez Molina commanded also talking about him committing atrocities.
One of the remarks that Pérez Molina made in response to the verdict against Ríos Montt—he was echoing the comments of the American Chamber of Commerce, which represents the U.S. corporations in Guatemala—was to say that this verdict will discourage foreign investment in Guatemala. It&#8217;s a very revealing comment, because foreign companies, when they come into a country and are looking to invest, they want some laws to be enforced, like the laws on contracts, and they want other laws not to be enforced, like the labor laws and the laws which stop them from murdering their employees if they try to organize unions. In the &#8217;80s, the leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce described to me how they would sometimes turn over names of troublesome workers to the security forces, and they would then disappear or be assassinated. Fred Sherwood was one of the Chamber of Commerce leaders who described that. And now, with this verdict, it seems that Pérez Molina and the corporate leaders and the elites in Guatemala, in general, are worried that they may have a harder time killing off workers and organizers when they need to.
And it&#8217;s especially relevant right now because there&#8217;s a huge conflict in Guatemala about mining. American and Canadian mining companies are being brought in by the Pérez Molina government to exploit silver and other minerals. The local communities are resisting. Community organizers have been killed. There was a clash in which a police officer was killed. So Pérez Molina has imposed a state of siege in various parts of the country. And just the other day, the local press printed a wiretap transcript of the head of security at one of these mines, in this case the San Rafael mining operation, where the security chief says to his men, regarding demonstrators who were outside the mine, he says, &quot;Goddamn dogs, they do not—they do not understand that the mine generates jobs. We must eliminate these animal pieces of [bleep]. We cannot allow people to establish resistance. Kill those sons of [bleep].&quot; And the security people later opened fire. This is the way foreign companies operate, not just in Guatemala, but around the world. I mean, it&#8217;s this kind of non-enforcement of law that made possible the Bangladesh factory collapse that killed over a hundred workers. And now they&#8217;re worried in Guatemala—
AMY GOODMAN : A thousand.
ALLAN NAIRN : Oh, I&#8217;m sorry, over a thousand workers—that this Ríos Montt case could also set a precedent for just starting to enforce the murder laws. And that can make their life a little more difficult. That can raise their labor costs. It has very serious implications for them.
And another aspect of this is that there&#8217;s going to be a fierce counterreaction against this verdict this week from the oligarchs, from the former military. They&#8217;re putting things out into the public calling Judge Barrios a dirty guerrilla, a hysterical Nazi. They have people following her around town with video cameras to try to imply that she&#8217;s not behaving in a proper manner for a judge. They&#8217;re going to try to get the courts, which have—other courts, which have traditionally been tools of the oligarchy and the military, to nullify the verdict against Ríos Montt. This battle is far from over.
AMY GOODMAN : Allan, there are three remarkable, prominent women who have—who are part of this verdict, who have helped to make it happen. One is the Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú, one of—who brought suit, that has led to this trial. One is the attorney general, the first woman attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz. And then there is Judge Barrios, the judge in this case. Can you talk about these women?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, it was Rigoberta Menchú who helped to get this whole process started years ago with legal cases filed against Guatemalan generals for atrocities in the Mayan region. That helped produce a criminal court case in Spain, where—in the Audiencia Nacional, where the Spanish courts indicted and tried to extradite Guatemalan generals and former officials to Spain. I testified in that trial. And one of the survivors of the massacres who testified in that trial mentioned that Pérez Molina—this was an aside at the trial, because there were so many officers who were implicated—that Pérez Molina had been involved in this man&#8217;s torture.
One of the reasons that this case against Ríos Montt has been able to go forward is because the current attorney general, Paz y Paz, is a person of great integrity and has allowed it to go forward, obviously against the wishes of Pérez Molina and the oligarchy.
And Judge Barrios was the one who was—who was directly on the lines. She ran the trial. She was the one who had to deliver the verdict. As she left the courthouse every night, you could see her wearing a bulletproof vest. The judges and prosecutors involved in the case received death threats. In one case, a threat against a prosecutor, the person delivering the threat put a pistol on the table and said, &quot;I know where your children are.&quot; It takes a lot of courage to push a case like this. And there are enough people in Guatemala who have been willing to stand up that it&#8217;s been able to go forward, but they&#8217;re doing so at considerable risk.
And just to give you an idea of the kind of environment they&#8217;re operating in, there&#8217;s a piece that just came out in Plaza Pública , one of the—kind of the leading political magazine in Guatemala, where they interview the families of the military, who have been protesting against the Ríos Montt trial. These are young people, now extremely rich because of all their money their parents stole in the military. And one of the topics that they talk about in this interview is the rape charges against the generals and colonels, because witness after witness talked about how indigenous women would be raped in the course of these massacre operations. And one of the military family men says that, &quot;Well, yes, these rapes—some of these rapes may have happened, but they didn&#8217;t happen as a rule.&quot; And he then defends the military men by saying he doesn&#8217;t think that they would systematically rape the indigenous women, and he then uses language so vile that I can&#8217;t repeat it on the air. But the essence of his argument is that—his argument is not that they wouldn&#8217;t have done it because it would be wrong to rape or because it&#8217;s against the law to rape or because these military men have honor or because it&#8217;s indecent to rape; his point was that they wouldn&#8217;t have committed these mass rapes because they wouldn&#8217;t have—because of personal characteristics of the indigenous women, they would not have found them desirable. But he expresses it in the most disgusting language you can imagine. This is the oligarchy that has now been—and the military, that has now been stung by this verdict and is itching for payback.
And one final legal point I should make, the mandate that the judge gave, the order to the attorney general, Judge Barrios&#8217;s order to the attorney general, Paz y Paz, to further investigate everyone involved in Ríos Montt&#8217;s crimes, that could encompass U.S. officials, because the U.S. military attachés in Guatemala, the CIA people who were on the ground aiding the G2 military intelligence unit, the policy-making officials back in Washington, people like Elliott Abrams and the other high officials of the Reagan administration, they were direct accessories to and accomplices to the Guatemalan military. There were supplying money, weapons, political support, intelligence. They, under the law—under international and Guatemalan law, they could be charged. The courts and the attorney general could have right to seek their extradition from the U.S. Also, in the investigation process, they could subpoena U.S. documents, because there would be extensive reports and National Security Agency intercepts of Guatemalan army communications from that period, and there would also be still-classified reports on exactly what the CIA and the DIA and the White House and the State Department were doing with Ríos Montt and with the commanders in the field, people like, well, before Ríos Montt, General Benedicto Lucas García, afterward Pérez Molina. So, both President Pérez Molina and the U.S. are now potential targets for criminal investigation for these crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in Guatemala.
AMY GOODMAN : Allan Nairn, we will leave it there for now, investigative journalist on the ground in Guatemala City, and end with a clip of Rigoberta Menchú, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who was there through the trial, speaking at the beginning of the genocide trial of Ríos Montt.
RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] It&#8217;s a very big day for Guatemala. It&#8217;s a very big day for those of us who have defended our lives in difficult circumstances, very painful circumstances of great isolation, of exile. It looks like our period of pain is ending, because we hope that from now on we will be accepted by Guatemalan society, in our polarized society, the society that carries the burden of past genocide on their backs.
AMY GOODMAN : That&#8217;s Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. The former dictator of Guatemala, Efraín Ríos Montt, has been sentenced to 80 years in prison. He was taken to prison after he was found guilty on Friday. This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org. We&#8217;ll link to Allan Nairn&#8217;s blog at allannairn.org . That&#8217;s A-L-L-A-N-N-A-I-R-N.org. And you can see all of our coverage of this trial and our interviews on Guatemala at democracynow.org.
This is Democracy Now! We&#8217;ll be back in a minute looking at the latest climate change news. We&#8217;ll be speaking with climatologist Michael Mann. Stay with us. AMYGOODMAN: In an historic verdict, former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was found guilty Friday of genocide and crimes against humanity and was sentenced to 80 years in prison. Judge Yassmin Barrios announced the verdict on Friday.

JUDGEYASSMINBARRIOS: [translated] By unanimous decision, the court declares that the accused, José Efraín Ríos Montt, is responsible as the author of the crime of genocide. He is responsible as the author of the crimes against humanity committed against the life and integrity of the civilian residents of the villages and hamlets located in Santa Maria Nebaj, San Juan Cotzal and San Gaspar Chajul. Immediate detention is ordered in order to assure the result of this court process and because of the nature of the crimes committed for which he has been condemned. I hereby order he enter prison directly.

AMYGOODMAN: Former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt was found guilty of overseeing the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala’s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. Over the past two months, nearly a hundred witnesses testified during the trial, describing massacres, torture and rape by state forces.

Also on trial was General José Mauricio Rodríguez Sánchez, Ríos Montt’s head of intelligence. He was found not guilty of the same charges.

Ríos Montt becomes the first former head of state to be found guilty of genocide in his or her own country. Ríos Montt was a close ally of the United States. Former President Ronald Reagan once called him, quote, "a man of great personal integrity."

After the verdict, Judge Barrios ordered the attorney general to launch an immediate investigation of "all others" connected to the crimes.

JUDGEYASSMINBARRIOS: [translated] In continuation of the investigation on the part of the public ministry, the tribunal orders the public ministry to continue the investigation against more people who could have participated in the acts which are being judged.

AMYGOODMAN: The Guatemalan Nobel Peace Prize laureate Rigoberta Menchú, who attended the trial, said there are others who should be tried for war crimes.

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] We are using the universal law. In other words, each person has inherent rights, and therefore it is a farce to say that if one is judged, all will be judged. We are not all. We are not things. If someone else is guilty of a crime, he is welcome to come and sit among the accused.

AMYGOODMAN: One former general implicated in abuses during the trial was Guatemala’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina. In the early 1980s, Pérez Molina was a military field commander in the northwest highlands, the Ixil region where the genocide occurred. At the time, he was operating under the alias "Major Tito Arias." During the trial, one former army officer accused him of participating in executions.

To talk more about the historic trial and the significance of the verdict and sentence, we go to Guatemala City, where we’re joined by investigative reporter Allan Nairn, who covered the trial and attended it in Guatemala and has covered Guatemala extensively in the 1980s.

Allan Nairn, welcome back to Democracy Now! The significance of the verdict and the 80-year sentence?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, this was a breakthrough for the idea of enforcing the murder laws, a breakthrough for indigenous people against racism and for human civilization, because you can’t really claim to be civilized unless you can enforce the law against the most basic taboo: murder. And when the murders are committed by people at the top, usually they get away with it. Even in recent years, when there’s been some progress internationally, through institutions like the International Criminal Court, in prosecuting former heads of state, generals, for atrocities, almost always the only ones who get prosecuted are those who have lost the power struggle, those who no longer hold onto the reins of power or are no longer backed by the elites. But this case was different. In this case, a conviction was obtained against a general who represented the elite that triumphed, the military and the oligarchs who were responsible for perhaps up to a quarter million civilian murders, especially in the 1980s. Those are the people who still rule Guatemala. Yet, one of their number, General Ríos Montt, has now been convicted, because this was a prosecution that was initiated from below. And I don’t know of a case where that’s ever been done before. And this could be the beginning of something very big. I think this will be remembered for 500 years.

AMYGOODMAN: Can you talk about what Efraín Ríos Montt was convicted of, what exactly he did?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, he was convicted of genocide and crimes against humanity. Ríos Montt ordered basically a program of extermination against civilians in the northwest highlands. That’s the area where the Mayan population of Guatemala is concentrated. They make up now, today, about half of the population of the country. And they formed—they were the part of the population that was most resistant to the rule of the army and to the rule of the oligarchy. They were pushing for land reform. They were pushing for rights to be recognized as equal citizens, which was something that, to this day, the Guatemalan oligarchy does not want to concede. And there was also a guerrilla movement that arose in the highlands.

And the Guatemalan army used a strategy of massacre. They would wipe out villages that did not submit to army rule. And the soldiers at the time described to me how they would conduct interrogations where they ask, "Who here gives food to the guerrillas? Who here criticizes the government?" And if they didn’t tell them what they wanted to hear, they would strangle them to death, or they would slit their throats. If the people being questioned were women and they were pregnant, they would slit them open with machetes. They would make people dig mass graves. They would then make them watch as they shot their neighbors in the head, in the face, in the back of the skull. And this just happened in village after village after village.

And it wasn’t an armed confrontation, because the villagers were unarmed. The soldiers were armed with American and Israeli weapons. The villagers were not. It was straight-up murder. It was part of a strategy that had been developed in conjunction with the U.S. In fact, the U.S. military attaché in Guatemala at the time, Colonel George Maynes, told me that this village—that he, himself, had helped develop this village sweep tactic. There was a U.S. trainer there, American Green Beret, who was training the military, and this is, in his words, how to destroy towns. And that’s what they did. And now Ríos Montt has been convicted for it.

AMYGOODMAN: Allan Nairn, can you describe the scene in the courtroom, from the point where the judge announced the verdict and the sentence and what happened in the courtroom and with Ríos Montt next?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, after the sentence, at one point, it looked like Ríos Montt was actually trying to flee the courtroom. It looked like his lawyers were trying to ease him out the door. And the judge started calling for security to stop Ríos Montt before he could sneak out the door.

The people in the audience started singing hymns. They started chanting, "Justice! Justice! Justice!" They chanted, "Yassmin! Yassmin!" That’s the name of the judge, Judge Barrios, who delivered the verdict. The Ixil people in the audience, many of whom had been survivors of these atrocities, who had risked their lives and come to Guatemala City to be witnesses in the trial, they stood up, and they put their arms across their—crossed their arms across the chest in the traditional way of saying thanks, and they all gave a slight bow in unison to pay tribute to the court.

The supporters of Ríos Montt, his family and the former military, some of them at certain points started shouting. They actually seemed most upset when the judge said that Ríos Montt would have to pay money reparations for his crimes. And, in fact, this morning there’s going to be a hearing on the reparations.

It took the—it took about 45 minutes for the prison police, who were supposed to drag Ríos Montt away, to get into the room. When they came in, I happened to be standing next to the door that they entered, and I asked, "Are you the guys who are supposed to take away Ríos Montt?" And you could see that they were extremely nervous. They were carrying long rifles. But, I mean, this is such an event that this is something they’ll be telling their grandchildren about.

AMYGOODMAN: And how did they take him out, after he tried to leave with his lawyers before they got there?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, there was a huge swarm of press. He was taken out, and at one point, when he was being put into the police vehicle, you could see that he was being held by the scruff of his neck by the police who were taking him away to prison.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re going to break and then come back to talk about a very interesting CNN interview with the current president of Guatemala, Otto Pérez Molina, because that’s the question everyone is asking now: Does this point the finger at him, he who enjoys immunity while he is president of Guatemala? We’re speaking with investigative journalist Allan Nairn in Guatemala City, attended the trial of Ríos Montt. Ríos Montt was found guilty of genocide and sentenced to 80 years in prison, where he sits today. Stay with us.

[break]

AMYGOODMAN: We continue our discussion about the historic verdict against former Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt, found guilty Friday of genocide and crimes against humanity, sentenced to 80 years in prison. Shortly after the verdict was announced, Guatemala’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, was interviewed on CNN en Español, Spanish CNN. The host, Fernando del Rincón, asked the president about his time, Otto Pérez Molina’s time, as a military commander, but the line mysteriously cut off right after he asked the question.

FERNANDODEL RINCÓN: [translated] In September 1982, Allan Nairn, an investigative journalist, had documentation where Major Tito Arias appeared in a video in which he said, quote, "All the families," referencing to the families in the zone, "are with the guerrillas." That’s what you said in September 1982 in the video in an interview with Allan Nairn, an investigative journalist from the United States, who, for certain, was there to be questioned in this process against Ríos Montt.

Let’s see if we’ll return with the president, to see if we’ll hear his response to that.

AMYGOODMAN:CNN host Fernando del Rincón returned to the question when the satellite was restored later in the interview.

FERNANDODEL RINCÓN: [translated] In 1982, you appear in a video of Allan Nairn’s, which you have confirmed that you appeared, then with the name Major Tito Arias, where you say, "All the families are with the guerrillas." What did you mean by that?

PRESIDENTOTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Look, this is another case where a phrase is taken out of context of what we were talking about. I don’t think the thing is like that, Fernando.

FERNANDODEL RINCÓN: [translated] No one is taking anything out of context. It is a video where it is a declaration you made.

PRESIDENTOTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] It must be raised. Of course you were taking it out of context. I can tell you here now. If you want, I can explain. In 1982—and you can come here to verify it everywhere—the faction of the guerrillas that was called the Guerrilla Army of the Poor in that area involved in entire families, without respecting their ages, from the elderly to the smallest children. They were given pseudonyms. They took over the local power. They built what they called "irregular local forces." They built what they called the "clandestine local committee." The plan was to burn. Better said, it wasn’t just a plan; they actually did burn the entire municipalities, in order to—

PRESIDENTOTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] That was the context in which we were living.

AMYGOODMAN: That is Guatemala’s current president, Otto Pérez Molina, being interviewed by CNN en Español host Fernando del Rincón. We’re joined by investigative journalist Allan Nairn, who Rincón was referring to in his questioning of Pérez Molina. You interviewed the Guatemalan president, Pérez Molina, when he was known as Tito in the highlands, Allan—that’s what he’s referring to—more than two decades ago. Explain the significance of this line of questioning and what Pérez Molina’s role was at the time that Ríos Montt has now been convicted of crimes against humanity for.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, now this—now that Ríos Montt has been convicted for the actions that the Guatemalan army took in the highlands, the next logical step is to look at those who were implementing the plan of Ríos Montt. And the field commander on the ground at that time in the Ixil region was Pérez Molina, who is now the president. With the ruling of the judge, this is more than just a logical conclusion that Pérez Molina should be investigated. It’s now a legal mandate from the court, because the court said that the attorney general of Guatemala is ordered to investigate everyone who could have been involved in the crimes for which Ríos Montt was convicted.

When I met Pérez Molina in '82, his troops were in the midst of a series of massacres, and the troops described how they would go into villages and execute civilians and torture civilians. At one point, one of the discussions with Pérez Molina took place as we were standing over the bodies of four guerrillas who the—his troops had captured. One of the soldiers said they had turned them over to Pérez Molina for interrogation after one of them had set off a grenade. The soldier said, "Well, they didn't want to say anything in their interrogation." Another soldier told me that they, the military, had in fact finished those troops off. So, Pérez Molina is a definite logical target for criminal investigation, although at this moment, as president, he still enjoys legal immunity. But that lapses as soon as he leaves an official position.

AMYGOODMAN:CNN host Fernando del Rincón also asked President Otto Pérez Molina if he still denies there was a genocide after Friday’s verdict.

PRESIDENTOTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Well, Fernando, I was speaking my personal opinion. And personally, I do not want this. And I said it also when I said that there was no genocide in Guatemala. And I repeat that now. Now, after there has been a judgment, which was in a lower court, today’s ruling is not as firm. We are respectful of what justice declares, and we will continue being respectful.

What I believe to be of value here, first of all, is that in Guatemala things are taking place that have never happened before. And that’s important. That is, a head of state today in a lower court having been convicted of a crime of this magnitude, which is the crime of genocide, is something that was unthinkable just 10 years ago here in Guatemala. Today what we are seeing is that justice can be exercised, justice can advance and move forward.

Now, this sentence is not so firm. The ruling shall be final when the appellate process runs its course. And I imagine those defending General Ríos will pursue these options, as he, himself, stated today after he saw the sentence and said he will appeal the sentence that was declared today.

AMYGOODMAN:CNN host Fernando del Rincón pressied President Molina further, asking him if he would go against the Guatemalan justice system and continue to deny that there’s a genocide.

PRESIDENTOTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Well, that’s hypothetical, Fernando. What you are telling me is an assumption. What is missing here is that the higher courts declare on the matter. I am not a part of the defense of General Ríos, and I will not be part of the official defense of General Ríos. In any case, as an executive, as president of the country, what is my responsibility is to be respectful. And it is what I also ask of all Guatemalans, that we be law-abiding. Here, we have to respect and we need to strengthen all the levels of justice. And what I have always said, we want justice to be served, but we want it to be a justice that is not biased to one side nor the other, because it would cease to be justice. And then what would happen is that Guatemalans would lose rather than be strengthened. They would lose confidence in the justice system. I’m not going to issue an opinion at this time.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, at one point, it sounds like Pérez Molina is trying to take credit for the trial. And the trial happened against his will. And, in fact, just a few weeks ago, he intervened behind the scenes to help kill the trial, and it was only revived after an intense backlash from the Guatemalan public and also international pressure. This morning’s Wall Street Journal carries a piece that has additional evidence citing various residents of the areas that Pérez Molina commanded also talking about him committing atrocities.

One of the remarks that Pérez Molina made in response to the verdict against Ríos Montt—he was echoing the comments of the American Chamber of Commerce, which represents the U.S. corporations in Guatemala—was to say that this verdict will discourage foreign investment in Guatemala. It’s a very revealing comment, because foreign companies, when they come into a country and are looking to invest, they want some laws to be enforced, like the laws on contracts, and they want other laws not to be enforced, like the labor laws and the laws which stop them from murdering their employees if they try to organize unions. In the ’80s, the leaders of the American Chamber of Commerce described to me how they would sometimes turn over names of troublesome workers to the security forces, and they would then disappear or be assassinated. Fred Sherwood was one of the Chamber of Commerce leaders who described that. And now, with this verdict, it seems that Pérez Molina and the corporate leaders and the elites in Guatemala, in general, are worried that they may have a harder time killing off workers and organizers when they need to.

And it’s especially relevant right now because there’s a huge conflict in Guatemala about mining. American and Canadian mining companies are being brought in by the Pérez Molina government to exploit silver and other minerals. The local communities are resisting. Community organizers have been killed. There was a clash in which a police officer was killed. So Pérez Molina has imposed a state of siege in various parts of the country. And just the other day, the local press printed a wiretap transcript of the head of security at one of these mines, in this case the San Rafael mining operation, where the security chief says to his men, regarding demonstrators who were outside the mine, he says, "Goddamn dogs, they do not—they do not understand that the mine generates jobs. We must eliminate these animal pieces of [bleep]. We cannot allow people to establish resistance. Kill those sons of [bleep]." And the security people later opened fire. This is the way foreign companies operate, not just in Guatemala, but around the world. I mean, it’s this kind of non-enforcement of law that made possible the Bangladesh factory collapse that killed over a hundred workers. And now they’re worried in Guatemala—

AMYGOODMAN: A thousand.

ALLANNAIRN: Oh, I’m sorry, over a thousand workers—that this Ríos Montt case could also set a precedent for just starting to enforce the murder laws. And that can make their life a little more difficult. That can raise their labor costs. It has very serious implications for them.

And another aspect of this is that there’s going to be a fierce counterreaction against this verdict this week from the oligarchs, from the former military. They’re putting things out into the public calling Judge Barrios a dirty guerrilla, a hysterical Nazi. They have people following her around town with video cameras to try to imply that she’s not behaving in a proper manner for a judge. They’re going to try to get the courts, which have—other courts, which have traditionally been tools of the oligarchy and the military, to nullify the verdict against Ríos Montt. This battle is far from over.

AMYGOODMAN: Allan, there are three remarkable, prominent women who have—who are part of this verdict, who have helped to make it happen. One is the Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú, one of—who brought suit, that has led to this trial. One is the attorney general, the first woman attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz. And then there is Judge Barrios, the judge in this case. Can you talk about these women?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, it was Rigoberta Menchú who helped to get this whole process started years ago with legal cases filed against Guatemalan generals for atrocities in the Mayan region. That helped produce a criminal court case in Spain, where—in the Audiencia Nacional, where the Spanish courts indicted and tried to extradite Guatemalan generals and former officials to Spain. I testified in that trial. And one of the survivors of the massacres who testified in that trial mentioned that Pérez Molina—this was an aside at the trial, because there were so many officers who were implicated—that Pérez Molina had been involved in this man’s torture.

One of the reasons that this case against Ríos Montt has been able to go forward is because the current attorney general, Paz y Paz, is a person of great integrity and has allowed it to go forward, obviously against the wishes of Pérez Molina and the oligarchy.

And Judge Barrios was the one who was—who was directly on the lines. She ran the trial. She was the one who had to deliver the verdict. As she left the courthouse every night, you could see her wearing a bulletproof vest. The judges and prosecutors involved in the case received death threats. In one case, a threat against a prosecutor, the person delivering the threat put a pistol on the table and said, "I know where your children are." It takes a lot of courage to push a case like this. And there are enough people in Guatemala who have been willing to stand up that it’s been able to go forward, but they’re doing so at considerable risk.

And just to give you an idea of the kind of environment they’re operating in, there’s a piece that just came out in Plaza Pública, one of the—kind of the leading political magazine in Guatemala, where they interview the families of the military, who have been protesting against the Ríos Montt trial. These are young people, now extremely rich because of all their money their parents stole in the military. And one of the topics that they talk about in this interview is the rape charges against the generals and colonels, because witness after witness talked about how indigenous women would be raped in the course of these massacre operations. And one of the military family men says that, "Well, yes, these rapes—some of these rapes may have happened, but they didn’t happen as a rule." And he then defends the military men by saying he doesn’t think that they would systematically rape the indigenous women, and he then uses language so vile that I can’t repeat it on the air. But the essence of his argument is that—his argument is not that they wouldn’t have done it because it would be wrong to rape or because it’s against the law to rape or because these military men have honor or because it’s indecent to rape; his point was that they wouldn’t have committed these mass rapes because they wouldn’t have—because of personal characteristics of the indigenous women, they would not have found them desirable. But he expresses it in the most disgusting language you can imagine. This is the oligarchy that has now been—and the military, that has now been stung by this verdict and is itching for payback.

And one final legal point I should make, the mandate that the judge gave, the order to the attorney general, Judge Barrios’s order to the attorney general, Paz y Paz, to further investigate everyone involved in Ríos Montt’s crimes, that could encompass U.S. officials, because the U.S. military attachés in Guatemala, the CIA people who were on the ground aiding the G2 military intelligence unit, the policy-making officials back in Washington, people like Elliott Abrams and the other high officials of the Reagan administration, they were direct accessories to and accomplices to the Guatemalan military. There were supplying money, weapons, political support, intelligence. They, under the law—under international and Guatemalan law, they could be charged. The courts and the attorney general could have right to seek their extradition from the U.S. Also, in the investigation process, they could subpoena U.S. documents, because there would be extensive reports and National Security Agency intercepts of Guatemalan army communications from that period, and there would also be still-classified reports on exactly what the CIA and the DIA and the White House and the State Department were doing with Ríos Montt and with the commanders in the field, people like, well, before Ríos Montt, General Benedicto Lucas García, afterward Pérez Molina. So, both President Pérez Molina and the U.S. are now potential targets for criminal investigation for these crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in Guatemala.

AMYGOODMAN: Allan Nairn, we will leave it there for now, investigative journalist on the ground in Guatemala City, and end with a clip of Rigoberta Menchú, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who was there through the trial, speaking at the beginning of the genocide trial of Ríos Montt.

RIGOBERTA MENCHÚ: [translated] It’s a very big day for Guatemala. It’s a very big day for those of us who have defended our lives in difficult circumstances, very painful circumstances of great isolation, of exile. It looks like our period of pain is ending, because we hope that from now on we will be accepted by Guatemalan society, in our polarized society, the society that carries the burden of past genocide on their backs.

AMYGOODMAN: That’s Nobel Peace Prize winner Rigoberta Menchú. The former dictator of Guatemala, Efraín Ríos Montt, has been sentenced to 80 years in prison. He was taken to prison after he was found guilty on Friday. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. We’ll link to Allan Nairn’s blog at allannairn.org. That’s A-L-L-A-N-N-A-I-R-N.org. And you can see all of our coverage of this trial and our interviews on Guatemala at democracynow.org.

This is Democracy Now! We’ll be back in a minute looking at the latest climate change news. We’ll be speaking with climatologist Michael Mann. Stay with us.

]]>
Mon, 13 May 2013 00:00:00 -0400Genocide Trial of Former Dictator Ríos Montt Suspended After Intervention by Guatemalan Presidenthttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/19/genocide_trial_of_former_dictator_ros
tag:democracynow.org,2013-04-19:en/story/8bdd33 JUAN GONZÁLEZ: An historic trial against former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity came to an abrupt end Thursday when an appeals court suspended the trial before a criminal court was scheduled to reach a verdict. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn reported last night Guatemalan army associates had threatened the lives of case judges and prosecutors and that the case had been annulled after intervention by Guatemala&#8217;s president, General Otto Pérez Molina.
Ríos Montt was the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide.
He was charged in connection with the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala&#8217;s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. His 17-month rule is seen as one of the bloodiest chapters in Guatemala&#8217;s decades-long campaign against Maya indigenous people, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
On Thursday, survivors of the genocide attempted to approach Ríos Montt inside the courtroom, screaming &quot;Murderer!&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : The trial took a surprising turn last week when Guatemala&#8217;s current president, General Otto Pérez Molina, was directly accused of ordering executions. A former military mechanic named Hugo Reyes told the court that President Pérez, then serving as an army major and using the name Tito Arias, ordered soldiers to burn and pillage a Mayan Ixil area in the 1980s.
We&#8217;re going right now to investigative journalist Allan Nairn. He flew to Guatemala City last week after we—he was called to testify in Ríos Montt&#8217;s trial. He was listed by the court as a &quot;qualified
witness&quot; and was tentatively scheduled to testify Monday. But at the last minute he was kept off the stand &quot;in order,&quot; he was told, &quot;to avoid a confrontation&quot; with the president, General Pérez Molina, and for fear that if he took the stand, military elements might respond with violence.
In the &#8217;80s, Allan Nairn had extensively documented broad army responsibility for the massacres and was prepared to present evidence that personally implicated Pérez Molina, who was field commander during the very Maya Ixil region massacres for which the ex-dictator, General Ríos Montt, has been charged with genocide.
Allan Nairn, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the significance of the latest developments, the annulling of the trial of Ríos Montt?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, this trial was a breakthrough, not just for Guatemala, but for the world. It was the first time that any nation had been able to use its domestic criminal courts to try a former head of state for genocide. Dozens upon dozens of Mayan survivors of the massacres risked their lives to come and testify. A massive evidentiary record was put together, in my view, to proving a case of genocide against General Ríos Montt and his co-defendant, his former intelligence chief. A verdict was just hours away. A verdict could have come today in the trial, but yesterday it was all annulled after intervention by General Pérez Molina, the current president, and the Guatemalan military and oligarchy killed it.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Allan, can you talk about what you learned in terms of the threats to the judges and—the judge and the prosecutor and what&#8217;s been their reaction, even though they&#8217;ve been sitting here now for several weeks in this trial?
ALLAN NAIRN : In one case, one of—one of the lawyers involved in pushing the case forward was approached by a man who offered him a million dollars if he would kill the case against Ríos Montt, a million U.S. dollars. He also said he would help him launder the money, set up offshore bank accounts. The lawyer rejected that. The man then took out a pistol, put the pistol on the table and said, &quot;I know where your children are.&quot; Another was approached on the street with a—with a direct death threat. Despite those threats, though, the case went forward. And now, after [inaudible] to kill the case, the attorney general of Guatemala, the trial judge presiding in the case are both vowing to try to go forward with it. They&#8217;re vowing to continue with the court hearing just a couple hours from now, even though they&#8217;ve been told they can&#8217;t. So a direct political confrontation has been set.
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re talking to investigative journalist Allan Nairn. He&#8217;s in Guatemala City. We&#8217;re reaching him by Democracy Now! video stream. Listen carefully. It&#8217;s a little difficult to make out what he is saying. But, Allan, we wanted to ask about why your testimony was canceled before the overall annulment of the trial yesterday. Why was your testimony considered so dangerous?
ALLAN NAIRN : I was given to understand that if I were called to the stand, two things would happen. First, President Pérez Molina would intervene to shut down the trial. And secondly, there could be violence, particularly from retired military. The reason was that, as you mentioned in the introduction, one witness had already implicated Pérez Molina in the massacres. He was a field commander at that time. After that testimony, Pérez Molina called in the attorney general, and the word went out that if he was mentioned again in the trial, if his name came up once, he would immediately shut it down. So—and they knew that I could implicate Pérez Molina further, because I had met him in the highlands during the massacres when he was operating under a code name. And I interviewed soldiers under his command who described how, under orders, they executed and tortured civilians.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Allan, in terms of the—of Pérez Molina himself, you have a situation here, obviously, after the Central America accords, when some sort of relative peace came to the region. How did Pérez Molina rise to power, being one of the underlings of Ríos Montt and the military that visited such carnage and such destruction on the people of Guatemala?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, the reason the military was doing those massacres in the first place was to preserve a political and economic system under which there was 80 percent attrition in the area around Nebaj, which is where Pérez Molina was stationed and where, at the same time, there were world-class rich people running the plantations, the banks, the industries. Those massacres were basically successful in crushing the population and crushing any resistance and in maintaining that system. And within that system, Pérez Molina was able to rise. He became a colonel. He became the head of the G-2 military intelligence service during a time [inaudible]—
AMY GOODMAN : We&#8217;re having a little trouble hearing, Allan.
ALLAN NAIRN : —placed on the CIA payroll. At one point, an office under his control was implicated in the—at one point, an office under Pérez Molina&#8217;s control was implicated in the assassination of a judge. He rose to general, and he was able to become president. That&#8217;s the—that&#8217;s the Guatemalan system. Yet, remarkably, even given that system, this movement from below of massacre survivors who refused to give up, who insisted on trying to bring generals to justice, was able to generate this trial, aided by people of integrity who had found their way into the Guatemalan judiciary and prosecution system, and a trial was begun. They heard massive amounts of evidence. I believe it was on the verge of giving a verdict, but then, at the last minute, Pérez Molina and the powers that be intervened.
AMY GOODMAN : Very quickly, Allan, we just have less than a minute, the attorney general is a woman. The judge is a woman. They are saying they&#8217;re going to move forward with this case, although it has been anulled, with a trial today? And what about protests outside?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, protests are planned outside the court. The judge, Yassmin Barrios, and the attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, both say they&#8217;re going to defy this order to kill the case, which is extraordinary. You know, this indicates, I think, that Guatemala has reached a higher level of civilization than the United States has. Even though this case was killed in the end, it&#8217;s inconceivable that in the United States a U.S. attorney, say, could indict a former U.S. president, could indict a George W. Bush for what he did in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, or could indict an Obama, and that this could proceed to trial and that massive amounts of evidence could be heard. That&#8217;s not yet conceivable in the American legal system, but it happened here in Guatemala, and it almost succeeded. It came very close. And now there&#8217;s going to be a popular reaction to try to continue that fight for law enforcement and justice.
AMY GOODMAN : And is it possible the trial will continue?
ALLAN NAIRN : Excuse me?
AMY GOODMAN : Is it possible the trial will continue?
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, I guess it&#8217;s possible, if Judge—Judge Barrios and the prosecutors are physically allowed into the courtroom, that they could try to have the trial. But the powers that be above them have now banned it, have now prohibited it. Ríos Montt and his lawyers may not show up. I don&#8217;t know what will happen. This is a real political crisis for Guatemala.
AMY GOODMAN : Investigative journalist Allan Nairn, speaking to us from Guatemala City. When we come back, we sat down with Allan before he left to go through the history of this trial and also play the videotape of his interview with the current president back more than 20 years ago when he was a major under Ríos Montt, on trial for genocide. Stay with us. JUAN GONZÁLEZ: An historic trial against former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity came to an abrupt end Thursday when an appeals court suspended the trial before a criminal court was scheduled to reach a verdict. Investigative journalist Allan Nairn reported last night Guatemalan army associates had threatened the lives of case judges and prosecutors and that the case had been annulled after intervention by Guatemala’s president, General Otto Pérez Molina.

Ríos Montt was the first head of state in the Americas to stand trial for genocide.
He was charged in connection with the slaughter of more than 1,700 people in Guatemala’s Ixil region after he seized power in 1982. His 17-month rule is seen as one of the bloodiest chapters in Guatemala’s decades-long campaign against Maya indigenous people, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

On Thursday, survivors of the genocide attempted to approach Ríos Montt inside the courtroom, screaming "Murderer!"

AMYGOODMAN: The trial took a surprising turn last week when Guatemala’s current president, General Otto Pérez Molina, was directly accused of ordering executions. A former military mechanic named Hugo Reyes told the court that President Pérez, then serving as an army major and using the name Tito Arias, ordered soldiers to burn and pillage a Mayan Ixil area in the 1980s.

We’re going right now to investigative journalist Allan Nairn. He flew to Guatemala City last week after we—he was called to testify in Ríos Montt’s trial. He was listed by the court as a "qualified
witness" and was tentatively scheduled to testify Monday. But at the last minute he was kept off the stand "in order," he was told, "to avoid a confrontation" with the president, General Pérez Molina, and for fear that if he took the stand, military elements might respond with violence.

In the ’80s, Allan Nairn had extensively documented broad army responsibility for the massacres and was prepared to present evidence that personally implicated Pérez Molina, who was field commander during the very Maya Ixil region massacres for which the ex-dictator, General Ríos Montt, has been charged with genocide.

Allan Nairn, welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about the significance of the latest developments, the annulling of the trial of Ríos Montt?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, this trial was a breakthrough, not just for Guatemala, but for the world. It was the first time that any nation had been able to use its domestic criminal courts to try a former head of state for genocide. Dozens upon dozens of Mayan survivors of the massacres risked their lives to come and testify. A massive evidentiary record was put together, in my view, to proving a case of genocide against General Ríos Montt and his co-defendant, his former intelligence chief. A verdict was just hours away. A verdict could have come today in the trial, but yesterday it was all annulled after intervention by General Pérez Molina, the current president, and the Guatemalan military and oligarchy killed it.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Allan, can you talk about what you learned in terms of the threats to the judges and—the judge and the prosecutor and what’s been their reaction, even though they’ve been sitting here now for several weeks in this trial?

ALLANNAIRN: In one case, one of—one of the lawyers involved in pushing the case forward was approached by a man who offered him a million dollars if he would kill the case against Ríos Montt, a million U.S. dollars. He also said he would help him launder the money, set up offshore bank accounts. The lawyer rejected that. The man then took out a pistol, put the pistol on the table and said, "I know where your children are." Another was approached on the street with a—with a direct death threat. Despite those threats, though, the case went forward. And now, after [inaudible] to kill the case, the attorney general of Guatemala, the trial judge presiding in the case are both vowing to try to go forward with it. They’re vowing to continue with the court hearing just a couple hours from now, even though they’ve been told they can’t. So a direct political confrontation has been set.

AMYGOODMAN: We’re talking to investigative journalist Allan Nairn. He’s in Guatemala City. We’re reaching him by Democracy Now! video stream. Listen carefully. It’s a little difficult to make out what he is saying. But, Allan, we wanted to ask about why your testimony was canceled before the overall annulment of the trial yesterday. Why was your testimony considered so dangerous?

ALLANNAIRN: I was given to understand that if I were called to the stand, two things would happen. First, President Pérez Molina would intervene to shut down the trial. And secondly, there could be violence, particularly from retired military. The reason was that, as you mentioned in the introduction, one witness had already implicated Pérez Molina in the massacres. He was a field commander at that time. After that testimony, Pérez Molina called in the attorney general, and the word went out that if he was mentioned again in the trial, if his name came up once, he would immediately shut it down. So—and they knew that I could implicate Pérez Molina further, because I had met him in the highlands during the massacres when he was operating under a code name. And I interviewed soldiers under his command who described how, under orders, they executed and tortured civilians.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Allan, in terms of the—of Pérez Molina himself, you have a situation here, obviously, after the Central America accords, when some sort of relative peace came to the region. How did Pérez Molina rise to power, being one of the underlings of Ríos Montt and the military that visited such carnage and such destruction on the people of Guatemala?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, the reason the military was doing those massacres in the first place was to preserve a political and economic system under which there was 80 percent attrition in the area around Nebaj, which is where Pérez Molina was stationed and where, at the same time, there were world-class rich people running the plantations, the banks, the industries. Those massacres were basically successful in crushing the population and crushing any resistance and in maintaining that system. And within that system, Pérez Molina was able to rise. He became a colonel. He became the head of the G-2 military intelligence service during a time [inaudible]—

AMYGOODMAN: We’re having a little trouble hearing, Allan.

ALLANNAIRN: —placed on the CIA payroll. At one point, an office under his control was implicated in the—at one point, an office under Pérez Molina’s control was implicated in the assassination of a judge. He rose to general, and he was able to become president. That’s the—that’s the Guatemalan system. Yet, remarkably, even given that system, this movement from below of massacre survivors who refused to give up, who insisted on trying to bring generals to justice, was able to generate this trial, aided by people of integrity who had found their way into the Guatemalan judiciary and prosecution system, and a trial was begun. They heard massive amounts of evidence. I believe it was on the verge of giving a verdict, but then, at the last minute, Pérez Molina and the powers that be intervened.

AMYGOODMAN: Very quickly, Allan, we just have less than a minute, the attorney general is a woman. The judge is a woman. They are saying they’re going to move forward with this case, although it has been anulled, with a trial today? And what about protests outside?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, protests are planned outside the court. The judge, Yassmin Barrios, and the attorney general, Claudia Paz y Paz, both say they’re going to defy this order to kill the case, which is extraordinary. You know, this indicates, I think, that Guatemala has reached a higher level of civilization than the United States has. Even though this case was killed in the end, it’s inconceivable that in the United States a U.S. attorney, say, could indict a former U.S. president, could indict a George W. Bush for what he did in Iraq and/or Afghanistan, or could indict an Obama, and that this could proceed to trial and that massive amounts of evidence could be heard. That’s not yet conceivable in the American legal system, but it happened here in Guatemala, and it almost succeeded. It came very close. And now there’s going to be a popular reaction to try to continue that fight for law enforcement and justice.

AMYGOODMAN: And is it possible the trial will continue?

ALLANNAIRN: Excuse me?

AMYGOODMAN: Is it possible the trial will continue?

ALLANNAIRN: Well, I guess it’s possible, if Judge—Judge Barrios and the prosecutors are physically allowed into the courtroom, that they could try to have the trial. But the powers that be above them have now banned it, have now prohibited it. Ríos Montt and his lawyers may not show up. I don’t know what will happen. This is a real political crisis for Guatemala.

AMYGOODMAN: Investigative journalist Allan Nairn, speaking to us from Guatemala City. When we come back, we sat down with Allan before he left to go through the history of this trial and also play the videotape of his interview with the current president back more than 20 years ago when he was a major under Ríos Montt, on trial for genocide. Stay with us.

]]>
Fri, 19 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400Exclusive: Allan Nairn Exposes Role of U.S. and New Guatemalan President in Indigenous Massacreshttp://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/19/exclusive_allan_nairn_exposes_role_of
tag:democracynow.org,2013-04-19:en/story/8c8d28 AMY GOODMAN : This is Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report . I&#8217;m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. We continue our coverage of the historic trial of former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Allan Nairn joined us in our studio last week before he flew to Guatemala. I began by asking him to describe just who Ríos Montt is.
ALLAN NAIRN : Ríos Montt was the dictator of Guatemala during 1982, &#39;83. He seized power in a military coup. He was trained in the U.S. He had served in Washington as head of the Inter-American Defense College. And while he was president, he was embraced by Ronald Reagan as a man of great integrity, someone totally devoted to democracy. And he killed many tens of thousands of civilians, particularly in the Mayan northwest highlands. In this particular trial, he is being charged with 1,771 specific murders in the area of the Ixil Mayans. These charges are being brought because the prosecutors have the names of each of these victims. They&#39;ve been able to dig up the bones of most of them.
AMY GOODMAN : Talk about how this campaign, this slaughter, was carried out and how it links to, well, the current government in Guatemala today.
ALLAN NAIRN : The army swept through the northwest highlands. And according to soldiers who I interviewed at the time, as they were carrying out the sweeps, they would go into villages, surround them, pull people out of their homes, line them up, execute them. A forensic witness testified in the trial that 80 percent of the remains they&#8217;ve recovered had gunshot wounds to the head. Witnesses have—witnesses and survivors have described Ríos Montt&#8217;s troops beheading people. One talked about an old woman who was beheaded, and then they kicked her head around the floor. They ripped the hearts out of children as their bodies were still warm, and they piled them on a table for their parents to see.
The soldiers I interviewed would describe their interrogation techniques, which they had been taught at the army general staff. And they said they would ask people, &quot;Who in the town are the guerrillas?&quot; And if the people would respond, &quot;We don&#8217;t know,&quot; then they would strangle them to death. These sweeps were intense. The soldiers said that often they would kill about a third of a town&#8217;s population. Another third they would capture and resettle in army camps. And the rest would flee into the mountains. There, in the mountains, the military would pursue them using U.S.-supplied helicopters, U.S.- and Israeli-supplied planes. They would drop U.S. 50-kilogram bombs on them, and they would machine-gun them from U.S. Huey and Bell helicopters, using U.S.-supplied heavy-caliber machine guns.
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s turn to a clip of you interviewing a soldier in the highlands. This is from a Finnish documentary—is that right? And when was this done? When were you talking to soldiers there?
ALLAN NAIRN : This was in September of 1982 in the Ixil zone in the area surrounding the town of Nebaj.
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s go to a clip of this interview.
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] This is how we are successful. And also, if we have already interrogated them, the only thing we can do is kill them.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] And how many did you kill?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] We killed the majority. There is nothing else to do than kill them.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] So you killed them at once?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] Yes. If they do not want to do the right things, there is nothing more to do than bomb the houses.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Bomb? With what?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] Well, with grenades or collective bombs.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] What is a collective bomb?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] They are like cannons.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Do you use helicopters?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] Yes.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] What is the largest amount of people you have killed at once?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] Well, really, in Sololá, around 500 people.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] And how do they react when you arrive?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] Who?
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] The people from the small villages.
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] When the army arrives, they flee from their houses. And so, as they flee to the mountains, the army is forced to kill them.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] And in which small village did the army do that kind of thing?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] That happened a lot of times.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Specifically, could you give me some examples where these things happened?
GUATEMALAN SOLDIER : [translated] In Salquil, Sumal Chiquito, Sumal Grande, Acul.
AMY GOODMAN : When did you interview this soldier, Allan?
ALLAN NAIRN : This was in September of &#8217;82.
AMY GOODMAN : What were you doing there?
ALLAN NAIRN : Making a documentary for Scandinavian television.
AMY GOODMAN : So you have soldiers talking about killing civilians, the brutal interrogations that they were engaged in. Why would they be telling you this? You&#8217;re a journalist. They&#8217;re talking about crimes they&#8217;re committing.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, because this is their everyday life. They do this all the time. They do it under orders from the top of the chain of command, at that time Ríos Montt. And they had hardly ever seen journalists at that time. It was very rare for an outside journalist or even a local journalist to go into that area.
AMY GOODMAN : So let&#8217;s take this to the current day, to the president of Guatemala today, because at the same time you were interviewing these soldiers, you interviewed the Guatemalan president—at least the Guatemalan president today in 2013.
ALLAN NAIRN : Yes, the senior officer, the commander in Nebaj, was a man who used the code name &quot;Mayor Tito,&quot; Major Tito. It turns out that that man&#8217;s real name was Otto Pérez Molina. Otto Pérez Molina later ascended to general, and today he is the president of Guatemala. So he is the one who was the local implementer of the program of genocide which Ríos Montt is accused of carrying out.
AMY GOODMAN : This is a huge charge. I mean, right now, it&#8217;s an historic trial when it&#8217;s 25 years after a past president is now being charged. Let&#8217;s go to a clip of Otto Pérez Molina, the current president of Guatemala, but this is 1982 in the heartland area of Quiché in northwest Guatemala, northwest of Guatemala City. In this video clip, Otto Pérez Molina is seen reading from political literature found on one of the bodies. This is your interview with him.
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] &quot;The poor artisan fights alongside the worker. The poor peasant fights alongside the worker. The wealth is produced by us, the poor. The army takes the poor peasants. Together, we have an invincible force. All the families are with the guerrilla, the guerrilla army of the poor, toward final victory forever.&quot; These are the different fronts that they have.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] So here they are saying that the army killed some people.
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN : I mean, this is astounding. This is the current president of Guatemala standing over these bodies. Tell us more.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, as one of the soldiers says in the sound in the background, the—Pérez Molina interrogated these men. And soon after, they were—they were dead. And one soldier told me off camera that in fact after Pérez Molina interrogated them, they finished them off.
AMY GOODMAN : This man, Pérez Molina, the president, actually was going by a code name at the time. When was it clear that this is Pérez Molina? Though we have a very clear shot of him.
ALLAN NAIRN : For a long time, Pérez Molina was trying to obscure his past and apparently hide the fact that he played this role in a supervisory position during the highland massacres. During the Guatemalan presidential campaign, which Pérez Molina eventually won, about two years ago, I got calls while I was in Asia from the Guatemalan press, from The Wall Street Journal , asking whether I could vouch for the fact that Mayor Tito, the man in the video who I encountered in the northwest highlands in the midst of the massacres—whether I could vouch for the fact that Mayor Tito was in fact General Otto Pérez Molina, the presidential candidate. And I said that I couldn&#8217;t, just from looking at the current videos. You know, people can change a lot visually over 30 years, so I said I couldn&#8217;t be sure. It turns out that—and during the campaign, when reporters would ask the Pérez Molina campaign, &quot;Is Pérez Molina Mayor Tito?&quot; they would dodge the question. They would evade. They were running from it. It turns out, though, we just learned this week, that Pérez Molina had admitted back in 2000 that he was Mayor Tito. But then, apparently afterward, he thought better of it and was trying to bury it. And now, this is potentially trouble for him. He&#8217;s currently president, and so, under Guatemalan law, he enjoys immunity. But once he leaves the presidency, he could, in theory, be subject to prosecution, just as Ríos Montt is now being prosecuted.
AMY GOODMAN : That could be a serious motivation for him declaring himself president for life.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, Ríos Montt seized power by a coup, but one of the important facts about the situation now is that the military men don&#8217;t have the power that they used to. The fact that this trial is happening is an indication of that. This trial is happening because the survivors refused to give up. They persisted—the survivors have been working on this for decades, pushing to bring Ríos Montt and the other generals to justice. They refused to give up. They got support from international—some international human rights lawyers. And within the Guatemalan justice system, there were a few people of integrity who ascended to positions of some authority within the prosecutorial system, within the judiciary. And so, we now have this near-political miracle of a country bringing to trial its former dictator for genocide, while the president of the country, who was implicated in those killings, sits by.
AMY GOODMAN : Allan, this video that we have of you interviewing Pérez Molina—again, as you said, he admitted to the Guatemalan newspaper, Prensa Libre , in 2000 that he used the nickname Tito—is quite astounding. So let&#8217;s go to another clip, where you&#8217;re talking to him about the kind of support that he wants.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] The United States is considering giving military help here in the form of helicopters. What is the importance of helicopters for all of you?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] A helicopter is an apparatus that&#8217;s become of great importance not only here in Guatemala but also in other countries where they&#8217;ve had problems of a counterinsurgency.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Like in Vietnam?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] In Vietnam, for example, the helicopter was an apparatus that was used a lot.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Can you also use it in combat?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Yes, of course. The helicopters that are military types, they are equipped to support operations in the field. They have machine guns and rocket launchers.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] What type of mortars are you guys using?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] There&#8217;s various types of mortars. We have small mortars and the mortars Tampella.
ALLAN NAIRN : Tampella.
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Yes, it&#8217;s a mortar that&#8217;s 60 millimeters.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Is it very powerful? Does it have a lot of force to destroy things?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Yes, it&#8217;s a weapon that&#8217;s very effective. It&#8217;s very useful, and it has a very good result in our operation in defense of the country.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Is it against a person or...?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Yes, it&#8217;s an anti-personnel weapon.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Do you have one here?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] It&#8217;s light and easy to transport, as well.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] So, it&#8217;s very light, and you can use it with your hand.
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] Exactly, with the hand.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] Where did you get them?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] These, we got from Israel.
ALLAN NAIRN : [translated] And where do you get the ammunition?
MAYOR OTTO PÉREZ MOLINA : [translated] That&#8217;s also from Israel.
AMY GOODMAN : So, this is, again, the current president, Pérez Molina, of Guatemala, the general you met in the highlands in 1982, asking for more aid. Talk about the relationship between Guatemala then and the United States.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, the U.S. was the sponsor of the Guatemalan army, as it had been for many decades, as the U.S. has and continues to sponsor dozens and dozens of repressive armies all over the world. In the case of Guatemala, if you go into the military academy and you see the pictures of the past presidents of military academy, some of them are actually Americans. They&#8217;re actual American officers there who were openly running the Guatemalan military training. By the &#8217;80s, when the Ríos Montt massacres were being carried out, the U.S. Congress was under the impression that they had successfully stopped U.S. military aid to Guatemala. But in fact it was continuing. The CIA had an extensive program of backing the G-2, the G-2, the military intelligence service, which selected the targets for assassination and disappearance. They even—they even built a headquarters for—a secret headquarters for the G-2 near the Guatemala City airport. They had American advisers working inside the headquarters. Out in the field, Guatemalan troops were receiving from the U.S. ammunition, weapons.
And most importantly, the U.S., beginning under the Carter administration but continuing under Reagan and after, asked the Israelis to come in and fill the gap that was caused by congressional restrictions. So Israel was doing massive shipments of Galil automatic rifles and other weapons. And Pérez Molina, as you saw in the video, actually had one of his subordinates come over and show me an Israeli-made mortar. That mortar and the helicopters he was asking for from the U.S., those were the kind of weapons they would use to bomb villages and attack people as they were fleeing in the mountains. In listening to the testimony in the trial up to this moment, I was struck by the fact that almost every witness mentioned that they had been attacked from the air, that either their village had been bombed or strafed or that they were bombed or strafed as they were fleeing in the mountains. This testimony suggests that the use of this U.S. and Israeli aircraft and U.S. munitions against the civilians in the Ixil highlands was actually much more extensive than we understood at the time.
Beyond that, beyond the material U.S. support, there&#8217;s the question of doctrine. Yesterday in the trial, the Ríos Montt defense called forward a general, a former commander of the G-2, as an expert witness on the defense side. And at the end of his testimony, the prosecution read to this general an excerpt from a Guatemalan military training document. And the document said it is often difficult for soldiers to accept the fact that they may be required to execute repressive actions against civilian women, children and sick people, but with proper training, they can be made to do so. So, the prosecutor asked the Ríos Montt general, &quot;Well, General, what is your response to this document?&quot; And the general responded by saying, &quot;Well, that training document which we use is an almost literal translation of a U.S. training document.&quot; So this doctrine of killing civilians, even down to women, children and sick people, was, as the general testified, adopted from the U.S. Indeed, years before, the U.S. military attaché in Guatemala, Colonel John Webber, had said to Time magazine that the Guatemalan army was licensed to kill guerrillas and potential guerrillas. And, of course, the category of potential guerrillas can include anyone, including children.
And the point of guerrilla civilians is actually very important to understanding this. Those bodies that Pérez Molina was standing over in Nebaj in 1982 in the film we saw, those were actually an exception to the rule, because the truth commission which investigated the massacres in Guatemala found that 93 percent of the victims were civilians killed by the Guatemalan army. But there was also some combat going on between the army and guerrillas. And in that case, in the video we saw, the bodies Pérez Molina was standing over were guerrillas, guerrillas that the army had captured. And one of them in captivity had set off a hand grenade as a suicide act, but apparently, from what I saw and what the soldiers told me, apparently they survived the blast, and they were then turned over to Pérez Molina for interrogation. He interrogated them, and then, as we saw, they turned up dead. But in the vast majority of cases, they were civilians, completely unarmed people, who were targeted by Ríos Montt&#8217;s army for elimination.
And I asked Ríos Montt about this practice on two different occasions, first in an interview with him two months after he seized power in 1982, and then later, years later, after he had been thrown out of power. And when I asked him in &#8217;82 about the fact that so many civilians were being killed by the army, he said, &quot;Look, for each one who is shooting, there are 10 who are standing behind him,&quot; meaning: Behind the guerrillas there are vast numbers of civilians. His senior aide and his spokesman, a man named Francisco Bianchi, who was sitting next to him at this interview, then expanded on the point. Bianchi said the guerrillas—well, the indigenous population—he called them &quot;indios,&quot; which is a slur in Guatemalan Spanish—
AMY GOODMAN : For Indians.
ALLAN NAIRN : Yes—were collaborating with the guerrilla, therefore it was necessary to kill Indians. &quot;And people would say,&quot; Bianchi continued, &quot;&#39;Oh, you&#39;re massacring all these innocent Indians&quot;—&quot;innocent Indios,&quot; in his words. But Bianchi then said, &quot;But, no, they are not innocent, because they had sold out to subversion.&quot; So this is the—this is the doctrine of killing civilians, and particularly Mayans, because the army saw them collectively as a group. They didn&#8217;t view them as individuals, but they saw them collectively as a group as sold out to subversion. And this was a doctrine that the U.S. supported.
AMY GOODMAN : Journalist Allan Nairn. The interview we did was recorded last week just before he left for Guatemala to testify in the trial against the Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. But at the last minute, his testimony was canceled late yesterday. The trial was canceled. We&#8217;ll continue with the interview in a minute.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN : Mercedes Sosa, here on Democracy Now! , democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report , as we continue our coverage of the historic trial of former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Allan Nairn joined us in our studio last week before he flew to Guatemala. His testimony was canceled. The trial was canceled last night. But I asked Allan to talk about how he managed to interview the Guatemalan dictator, Ríos Montt, two months after he seized power in the 1980s.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, he was—he was giving press interviews. This was an interview in the palace. I was there with a couple of other reporters. Ríos Montt was very outspoken. He would go on TV and say, &quot;Today we are going to begin a merciless struggle. We are going to kill, but we are going to kill legally.&quot; That was his style, to speak directly. And it&#8217;s in great contrast to what he&#8217;s doing today. I mean, it&#8217;s very interesting from point of view of people who&#8217;ve survived these kind of generals who live on the blood of the people, not just in Guatemala but in Salvador, in East Timor, in Indonesia, in countless countries where the U.S. has backed this kind of terror. You have the spectacle now of this general, who once made poor people tremble at the sight of him, at the mention of him, now he&#8217;s hiding. In the trial, he refuses to talk. He will not defend himself. He&#8217;s like a common thug taken off the streets who invokes his Fifth Amendment—invokes his Fifth Amendment rights. But back then, when he had the power, when no one could challenge him, he would speak fairly openly. In fact, the second time I spoke to him, a number of years after, I asked Ríos Montt whether he thought that he should be executed, whether he should be tried and executed because of his own responsibility for the highland massacres, and he responded by jumping to his feet and shouting, &quot;Yes! Put me on trial. Put me against the wall. But if you&#8217;re going to put me on trial, you have to try the Americans first, including Ronald Reagan.&quot;
AMY GOODMAN : Allan Nairn, at the time in Guatemala, you not only were interviewing, well, now the current president, Pérez Molina, who was in the highlands at the time standing over dead bodies, but you were also talking to U.S. officials, and I want to go to this issue of U.S. involvement in what happened in Guatemala. Tell us about U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth, a man you got to interview at the time during the Ríos Montt years.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, Bosworth was, at the time, an important player in U.S. Central American policy. And he, along with Elliott Abrams, for example, attacked Amnesty International when Amnesty was trying to report on the assassinations of labor leaders and priests and peasant organizers and activists in the Mayan highlands. And he also was denying that the U.S. was giving military assistance to the Guatemalan army that was carrying out those crimes.
AMY GOODMAN : Let&#8217;s turn to the interview you did with then U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth.
STEPHEN BOSWORTH : Well, I think the important factor is that there has been, over the last six months, evidence of significant improvement in the human rights situation in Guatemala. Since the coming into power of the Ríos Montt government, the level of violence in the country, politically inspired violence, particularly in the urban areas, has declined rather dramatically. That being said, however, I think it&#8217;s important also to note that the level of violence in the countryside continues at a level which is of concern to all. And while it is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute responsibility for that violence in each instance, it is clear that in the countryside the government does indeed need to make further progress in terms of improving its control over government troops.
AMY GOODMAN : You also, Allan Nairn, asked the then-U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth precisely what was the U.S. military presence and role in Guatemala. This is how Bosworth responded.
STEPHEN BOSWORTH : We have no military presence or role. We have, as a part of our diplomatic establishment, a defense attaché office and a military representative. But that is the same sort of representation that we have in virtually all other countries in the world. We do not have American trainers working with the Guatemalan army. We do not have American military personnel active in Guatemala in that—in that sort of area.
ALLAN NAIRN : There are no American trainers there?
STEPHEN BOSWORTH : No.
ALLAN NAIRN : None performing the types of functions that go on in El Salvador, for instance?
STEPHEN BOSWORTH : No, there are not.
AMY GOODMAN : That was then-U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth. Respond to what he said, and tell us who he later became, who he is today in the U.S. government.
ALLAN NAIRN : Well, first, just about everything that Bosworth said there was a lie. He said that the killings were down. In fact, they increased dramatically under Ríos Montt. He said, quite interestingly, that it was impossible to know and attribute responsibility for what was happening. Well, the Conference of Catholic Bishops had no difficulty knowing and attributing responsibility. They said that the killings have reached the extreme of genocide. They were saying this at the moment that the massacres were happening and at the moment that Bosworth was denying it. And they and the survivors and the human rights groups were all clearly blaming it on the army.
And then, finally, he said that the army has to be careful to maintain control over its troops. Well, there was a very strict control. In fact, the officers in the field in the Ixil zone that I interviewed at the time said they were on a very short leash and that there were only three layers of command between themselves in the field and Ríos Montt. And, in fact, a few weeks earlier, there had been only two layers of command between themselves and Ríos Montt.
Then, Bosworth went on to say that the U.S. was not giving any military assistance to Guatemala, but I guess it was a couple weeks after that interview when we went down to Guatemala, I met a U.S. Green Beret, Captain Jesse Garcia, who was training the Guatemalan military in combat techniques, including what he called how—in his words, &quot;how to destroy towns.&quot; This was apart from the weapons and U.S. munitions that I mentioned before, apart from the CIA trainers who were working in the CIA -built headquarters of the G-2, the military intelligence service that was doing the assassinations and disappearances.
AMY GOODMAN : The G-2 being the Guatemalan G-2. Now, today Stephen Bosworth is the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. But before that, in 2009, well, he played a key role in the Obama administration.
ALLAN NAIRN : Yes, rather than being—you know, in what you might consider to be a normally functioning political system, if a high government official lied like that about matters of such grave, life-and-death importance and was involved in the supply of arms to terrorists, in this case the Guatemalan military, you would expect him at the minimum to be fired and disgraced, or maybe brought up on charges. But Bosworth was actually promoted. And under the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton chose him as the special envoy to North Korea. He&#8217;s been in the news a great deal in recent times because of his very prominent role there.
AMY GOODMAN : In 1995, Allan Nairn was interviewed on Charlie Rose about his piece in The Nation called &quot; CIA Death Squad,&quot; in which he described how Americans were directly involved in killings by the Guatemalan army. He was interviewed alongside Elliott Abrams, who challenged what he was saying. Abrams had served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. This clip begins with Elliott Abrams.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS : Wait a minute. We&#8217;re not here to refight the Cold War. We&#8217;re here to talk about, I thought, a specific case in which an allegation is being made that—of the husband of an American and, another case, an American citizen were killed, and there was a CIA connection with—allegedly with the person allegedly involved in it. Now, I&#8217;m happy to talk about that kind of thing. If Mr. Nairn thinks we should have been on the other side in Guatemala—that is, we should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory—I disagree with him.
ALLAN NAIRN : So you&#8217;re then admitting that you were on the side of the Guatemalan military.
ELLIOTT ABRAMS : I am admitting that it was the policy of the United States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress repeatedly, to oppose a communist guerrilla victory anywhere in Central America, including in Guatemala.
CHARLIE ROSE : Alright, well, I—
ALLAN NAIRN : A communist guerrilla victory.
CHARLIE ROSE : Yeah, I—
ALLAN NAIRN : Ninety-five percent of these victims are civilians—peasant organizers, human rights leaders—
CHARLIE ROSE : I am happy to invite both of you—
ALLAN NAIRN : —priests—assassinated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan army. Let&#8217;s look at reality here. In reality, we&#8217;re not talking about two murders, one colonel. We&#8217;re talking about more than 100,000 murders, an entire army, many of its top officers employees of the U.S. government. We&#8217;re talking about crimes, and we&#8217;re also talking about criminals, not just people like the Guatemalan colonels, but also the U.S. agents who have been working with them and the higher-level U.S. officials. I mean, I think you have to be—you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush once talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg-style tribunal. I think that&#8217;s a good idea. But if you&#8217;re serious, you have to be even-handed. If we look at a case like this, I think we have to talk—start talking about putting Guatemalan and U.S. officials on trial. I think someone like Mr. Abrams would be a fit—a subject for such a Nuremberg-style inquiry. But I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to be in the dock with him. The Congress has been in on this. The Congress approved the sale of 16,000 M-16s to Guatemala. In &#8217;87 and &#8217;88—
CHARLIE ROSE : Alright, but hold on one second. I just—before—because the—
ALLAN NAIRN : They voted more military aid than the Republicans asked for.
CHARLIE ROSE : Again, I invite you and Elliott Abrams back to discuss what he did. But right now, you—
ELLIOTT ABRAMS : No, thanks, Charlie, but I won&#8217;t accept—
CHARLIE ROSE : Hold on one second. Go ahead. You want to repeat the question, of you want to be in the dock?
ELLIOTT ABRAMS : It is ludicrous. It is ludicrous to respond to that kind of stupidity. This guy thinks we were on the wrong side in the Cold War. Maybe he personally was on the wrong side. I am one of the many millions of Americans who thinks we were happy to win.
CHARLIE ROSE : Alright, I don&#8217;t—
ALLAN NAIRN : Mr. Abrams, you were on the wrong side in supporting the massacre of peasants and organizers, anyone who dared to speak, absolutely.
CHARLIE ROSE : What I want to do is I want to ask the following question.
ALLAN NAIRN : And that&#8217;s a crime. That&#8217;s a crime, Mr. Abrams, for which people should be tried. U.S. laws—
ELLIOTT ABRAMS : Why don&#8217;t you—yes, right, we&#8217;ll put all the American officials who won the Cold War in the dock.
AMY GOODMAN : That was Elliott Abrams—he served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from &#8217;81 to &#8217;85—debating investigative journalist Allan Nairn on the Charlie Rose show. Actually, Congressmember Robert Torricelli, then from New Jersey, before he became senator, was also in that discussion at another point. Allan, the significance of what Mr. Abrams was saying? He went on, Abrams, to deal with the Middle East.
ALLAN NAIRN : Yes. Well, he—when I said that he should be tried by a Nuremberg-style tribunal, he basically reacted by saying I was crazy, that this was a crazy idea that you could try U.S. officials for supplying weapons to armies that kill civilians. But people also thought that it was crazy that Ríos Montt could face justice in Guatemala. But after decades of work by the survivors of his Mayan highland massacres, today, as we speak, Ríos Montt is sitting in the dock.
AMY GOODMAN : Award-winning journalist Allan Nairn, speaking last week before he flew to Guatemala. On Thursday, a landmark genocide trial against former Guatemalan dictator Ríos Montt was suspended after the trial threatened to implicate the current president of Guatemala in the mass killings of civilians. Allan reports Guatemalan army associates had threatened the lives of case judges and prosecutors and that the case had been annulled after intervention by Guatemala&#8217;s president, General Otto Pérez Molina. Some of the video footage used in the show comes from a 1983 documentary directed by Mikael Wahlforss. We&#8217;ll link to it at democracynow.org and to Allan Nairn&#8217;s website, allannairn.org .
That does it for our show. Juan González will be speaking tonight in Chicago at 8:15 at the Gene Siskel Film Center at North State Street and tomorrow at noon at Wayne State University [in Detroit] at noon . AMYGOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González. We continue our coverage of the historic trial of former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Allan Nairn joined us in our studio last week before he flew to Guatemala. I began by asking him to describe just who Ríos Montt is.

ALLANNAIRN: Ríos Montt was the dictator of Guatemala during 1982, '83. He seized power in a military coup. He was trained in the U.S. He had served in Washington as head of the Inter-American Defense College. And while he was president, he was embraced by Ronald Reagan as a man of great integrity, someone totally devoted to democracy. And he killed many tens of thousands of civilians, particularly in the Mayan northwest highlands. In this particular trial, he is being charged with 1,771 specific murders in the area of the Ixil Mayans. These charges are being brought because the prosecutors have the names of each of these victims. They've been able to dig up the bones of most of them.

AMYGOODMAN: Talk about how this campaign, this slaughter, was carried out and how it links to, well, the current government in Guatemala today.

ALLANNAIRN: The army swept through the northwest highlands. And according to soldiers who I interviewed at the time, as they were carrying out the sweeps, they would go into villages, surround them, pull people out of their homes, line them up, execute them. A forensic witness testified in the trial that 80 percent of the remains they’ve recovered had gunshot wounds to the head. Witnesses have—witnesses and survivors have described Ríos Montt’s troops beheading people. One talked about an old woman who was beheaded, and then they kicked her head around the floor. They ripped the hearts out of children as their bodies were still warm, and they piled them on a table for their parents to see.

The soldiers I interviewed would describe their interrogation techniques, which they had been taught at the army general staff. And they said they would ask people, "Who in the town are the guerrillas?" And if the people would respond, "We don’t know," then they would strangle them to death. These sweeps were intense. The soldiers said that often they would kill about a third of a town’s population. Another third they would capture and resettle in army camps. And the rest would flee into the mountains. There, in the mountains, the military would pursue them using U.S.-supplied helicopters, U.S.- and Israeli-supplied planes. They would drop U.S. 50-kilogram bombs on them, and they would machine-gun them from U.S. Huey and Bell helicopters, using U.S.-supplied heavy-caliber machine guns.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s turn to a clip of you interviewing a soldier in the highlands. This is from a Finnish documentary—is that right? And when was this done? When were you talking to soldiers there?

ALLANNAIRN: This was in September of 1982 in the Ixil zone in the area surrounding the town of Nebaj.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s go to a clip of this interview.

GUATEMALANSOLDIER: [translated] This is how we are successful. And also, if we have already interrogated them, the only thing we can do is kill them.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] And how many did you kill?

GUATEMALANSOLDIER: [translated] We killed the majority. There is nothing else to do than kill them.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] So you killed them at once?

GUATEMALANSOLDIER: [translated] Yes. If they do not want to do the right things, there is nothing more to do than bomb the houses.

AMYGOODMAN: So you have soldiers talking about killing civilians, the brutal interrogations that they were engaged in. Why would they be telling you this? You’re a journalist. They’re talking about crimes they’re committing.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, because this is their everyday life. They do this all the time. They do it under orders from the top of the chain of command, at that time Ríos Montt. And they had hardly ever seen journalists at that time. It was very rare for an outside journalist or even a local journalist to go into that area.

AMYGOODMAN: So let’s take this to the current day, to the president of Guatemala today, because at the same time you were interviewing these soldiers, you interviewed the Guatemalan president—at least the Guatemalan president today in 2013.

ALLANNAIRN: Yes, the senior officer, the commander in Nebaj, was a man who used the code name "Mayor Tito," Major Tito. It turns out that that man’s real name was Otto Pérez Molina. Otto Pérez Molina later ascended to general, and today he is the president of Guatemala. So he is the one who was the local implementer of the program of genocide which Ríos Montt is accused of carrying out.

AMYGOODMAN: This is a huge charge. I mean, right now, it’s an historic trial when it’s 25 years after a past president is now being charged. Let’s go to a clip of Otto Pérez Molina, the current president of Guatemala, but this is 1982 in the heartland area of Quiché in northwest Guatemala, northwest of Guatemala City. In this video clip, Otto Pérez Molina is seen reading from political literature found on one of the bodies. This is your interview with him.

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] "The poor artisan fights alongside the worker. The poor peasant fights alongside the worker. The wealth is produced by us, the poor. The army takes the poor peasants. Together, we have an invincible force. All the families are with the guerrilla, the guerrilla army of the poor, toward final victory forever." These are the different fronts that they have.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] So here they are saying that the army killed some people.

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Exactly.

AMYGOODMAN: I mean, this is astounding. This is the current president of Guatemala standing over these bodies. Tell us more.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, as one of the soldiers says in the sound in the background, the—Pérez Molina interrogated these men. And soon after, they were—they were dead. And one soldier told me off camera that in fact after Pérez Molina interrogated them, they finished them off.

AMYGOODMAN: This man, Pérez Molina, the president, actually was going by a code name at the time. When was it clear that this is Pérez Molina? Though we have a very clear shot of him.

ALLANNAIRN: For a long time, Pérez Molina was trying to obscure his past and apparently hide the fact that he played this role in a supervisory position during the highland massacres. During the Guatemalan presidential campaign, which Pérez Molina eventually won, about two years ago, I got calls while I was in Asia from the Guatemalan press, from The Wall Street Journal, asking whether I could vouch for the fact that Mayor Tito, the man in the video who I encountered in the northwest highlands in the midst of the massacres—whether I could vouch for the fact that Mayor Tito was in fact General Otto Pérez Molina, the presidential candidate. And I said that I couldn’t, just from looking at the current videos. You know, people can change a lot visually over 30 years, so I said I couldn’t be sure. It turns out that—and during the campaign, when reporters would ask the Pérez Molina campaign, "Is Pérez Molina Mayor Tito?" they would dodge the question. They would evade. They were running from it. It turns out, though, we just learned this week, that Pérez Molina had admitted back in 2000 that he was Mayor Tito. But then, apparently afterward, he thought better of it and was trying to bury it. And now, this is potentially trouble for him. He’s currently president, and so, under Guatemalan law, he enjoys immunity. But once he leaves the presidency, he could, in theory, be subject to prosecution, just as Ríos Montt is now being prosecuted.

AMYGOODMAN: That could be a serious motivation for him declaring himself president for life.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, Ríos Montt seized power by a coup, but one of the important facts about the situation now is that the military men don’t have the power that they used to. The fact that this trial is happening is an indication of that. This trial is happening because the survivors refused to give up. They persisted—the survivors have been working on this for decades, pushing to bring Ríos Montt and the other generals to justice. They refused to give up. They got support from international—some international human rights lawyers. And within the Guatemalan justice system, there were a few people of integrity who ascended to positions of some authority within the prosecutorial system, within the judiciary. And so, we now have this near-political miracle of a country bringing to trial its former dictator for genocide, while the president of the country, who was implicated in those killings, sits by.

AMYGOODMAN: Allan, this video that we have of you interviewing Pérez Molina—again, as you said, he admitted to the Guatemalan newspaper, Prensa Libre, in 2000 that he used the nickname Tito—is quite astounding. So let’s go to another clip, where you’re talking to him about the kind of support that he wants.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] The United States is considering giving military help here in the form of helicopters. What is the importance of helicopters for all of you?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] A helicopter is an apparatus that’s become of great importance not only here in Guatemala but also in other countries where they’ve had problems of a counterinsurgency.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] Like in Vietnam?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] In Vietnam, for example, the helicopter was an apparatus that was used a lot.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] Can you also use it in combat?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Yes, of course. The helicopters that are military types, they are equipped to support operations in the field. They have machine guns and rocket launchers.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] What type of mortars are you guys using?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] There’s various types of mortars. We have small mortars and the mortars Tampella.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] So, it’s very light, and you can use it with your hand.

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] Exactly, with the hand.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] Where did you get them?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] These, we got from Israel.

ALLANNAIRN: [translated] And where do you get the ammunition?

MAYOROTTO PÉREZ MOLINA: [translated] That’s also from Israel.

AMYGOODMAN: So, this is, again, the current president, Pérez Molina, of Guatemala, the general you met in the highlands in 1982, asking for more aid. Talk about the relationship between Guatemala then and the United States.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, the U.S. was the sponsor of the Guatemalan army, as it had been for many decades, as the U.S. has and continues to sponsor dozens and dozens of repressive armies all over the world. In the case of Guatemala, if you go into the military academy and you see the pictures of the past presidents of military academy, some of them are actually Americans. They’re actual American officers there who were openly running the Guatemalan military training. By the ’80s, when the Ríos Montt massacres were being carried out, the U.S. Congress was under the impression that they had successfully stopped U.S. military aid to Guatemala. But in fact it was continuing. The CIA had an extensive program of backing the G-2, the G-2, the military intelligence service, which selected the targets for assassination and disappearance. They even—they even built a headquarters for—a secret headquarters for the G-2 near the Guatemala City airport. They had American advisers working inside the headquarters. Out in the field, Guatemalan troops were receiving from the U.S. ammunition, weapons.

And most importantly, the U.S., beginning under the Carter administration but continuing under Reagan and after, asked the Israelis to come in and fill the gap that was caused by congressional restrictions. So Israel was doing massive shipments of Galil automatic rifles and other weapons. And Pérez Molina, as you saw in the video, actually had one of his subordinates come over and show me an Israeli-made mortar. That mortar and the helicopters he was asking for from the U.S., those were the kind of weapons they would use to bomb villages and attack people as they were fleeing in the mountains. In listening to the testimony in the trial up to this moment, I was struck by the fact that almost every witness mentioned that they had been attacked from the air, that either their village had been bombed or strafed or that they were bombed or strafed as they were fleeing in the mountains. This testimony suggests that the use of this U.S. and Israeli aircraft and U.S. munitions against the civilians in the Ixil highlands was actually much more extensive than we understood at the time.

Beyond that, beyond the material U.S. support, there’s the question of doctrine. Yesterday in the trial, the Ríos Montt defense called forward a general, a former commander of the G-2, as an expert witness on the defense side. And at the end of his testimony, the prosecution read to this general an excerpt from a Guatemalan military training document. And the document said it is often difficult for soldiers to accept the fact that they may be required to execute repressive actions against civilian women, children and sick people, but with proper training, they can be made to do so. So, the prosecutor asked the Ríos Montt general, "Well, General, what is your response to this document?" And the general responded by saying, "Well, that training document which we use is an almost literal translation of a U.S. training document." So this doctrine of killing civilians, even down to women, children and sick people, was, as the general testified, adopted from the U.S. Indeed, years before, the U.S. military attaché in Guatemala, Colonel John Webber, had said to Time magazine that the Guatemalan army was licensed to kill guerrillas and potential guerrillas. And, of course, the category of potential guerrillas can include anyone, including children.

And the point of guerrilla civilians is actually very important to understanding this. Those bodies that Pérez Molina was standing over in Nebaj in 1982 in the film we saw, those were actually an exception to the rule, because the truth commission which investigated the massacres in Guatemala found that 93 percent of the victims were civilians killed by the Guatemalan army. But there was also some combat going on between the army and guerrillas. And in that case, in the video we saw, the bodies Pérez Molina was standing over were guerrillas, guerrillas that the army had captured. And one of them in captivity had set off a hand grenade as a suicide act, but apparently, from what I saw and what the soldiers told me, apparently they survived the blast, and they were then turned over to Pérez Molina for interrogation. He interrogated them, and then, as we saw, they turned up dead. But in the vast majority of cases, they were civilians, completely unarmed people, who were targeted by Ríos Montt’s army for elimination.

And I asked Ríos Montt about this practice on two different occasions, first in an interview with him two months after he seized power in 1982, and then later, years later, after he had been thrown out of power. And when I asked him in ’82 about the fact that so many civilians were being killed by the army, he said, "Look, for each one who is shooting, there are 10 who are standing behind him," meaning: Behind the guerrillas there are vast numbers of civilians. His senior aide and his spokesman, a man named Francisco Bianchi, who was sitting next to him at this interview, then expanded on the point. Bianchi said the guerrillas—well, the indigenous population—he called them "indios," which is a slur in Guatemalan Spanish—

AMYGOODMAN: For Indians.

ALLANNAIRN: Yes—were collaborating with the guerrilla, therefore it was necessary to kill Indians. "And people would say," Bianchi continued, "'Oh, you're massacring all these innocent Indians"—"innocent Indios," in his words. But Bianchi then said, "But, no, they are not innocent, because they had sold out to subversion." So this is the—this is the doctrine of killing civilians, and particularly Mayans, because the army saw them collectively as a group. They didn’t view them as individuals, but they saw them collectively as a group as sold out to subversion. And this was a doctrine that the U.S. supported.

AMYGOODMAN: Journalist Allan Nairn. The interview we did was recorded last week just before he left for Guatemala to testify in the trial against the Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt. But at the last minute, his testimony was canceled late yesterday. The trial was canceled. We’ll continue with the interview in a minute.

[break]

AMYGOODMAN: Mercedes Sosa, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report, as we continue our coverage of the historic trial of former U.S.-backed Guatemalan dictator Efraín Ríos Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. Allan Nairn joined us in our studio last week before he flew to Guatemala. His testimony was canceled. The trial was canceled last night. But I asked Allan to talk about how he managed to interview the Guatemalan dictator, Ríos Montt, two months after he seized power in the 1980s.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, he was—he was giving press interviews. This was an interview in the palace. I was there with a couple of other reporters. Ríos Montt was very outspoken. He would go on TV and say, "Today we are going to begin a merciless struggle. We are going to kill, but we are going to kill legally." That was his style, to speak directly. And it’s in great contrast to what he’s doing today. I mean, it’s very interesting from point of view of people who’ve survived these kind of generals who live on the blood of the people, not just in Guatemala but in Salvador, in East Timor, in Indonesia, in countless countries where the U.S. has backed this kind of terror. You have the spectacle now of this general, who once made poor people tremble at the sight of him, at the mention of him, now he’s hiding. In the trial, he refuses to talk. He will not defend himself. He’s like a common thug taken off the streets who invokes his Fifth Amendment—invokes his Fifth Amendment rights. But back then, when he had the power, when no one could challenge him, he would speak fairly openly. In fact, the second time I spoke to him, a number of years after, I asked Ríos Montt whether he thought that he should be executed, whether he should be tried and executed because of his own responsibility for the highland massacres, and he responded by jumping to his feet and shouting, "Yes! Put me on trial. Put me against the wall. But if you’re going to put me on trial, you have to try the Americans first, including Ronald Reagan."

AMYGOODMAN: Allan Nairn, at the time in Guatemala, you not only were interviewing, well, now the current president, Pérez Molina, who was in the highlands at the time standing over dead bodies, but you were also talking to U.S. officials, and I want to go to this issue of U.S. involvement in what happened in Guatemala. Tell us about U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth, a man you got to interview at the time during the Ríos Montt years.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, Bosworth was, at the time, an important player in U.S. Central American policy. And he, along with Elliott Abrams, for example, attacked Amnesty International when Amnesty was trying to report on the assassinations of labor leaders and priests and peasant organizers and activists in the Mayan highlands. And he also was denying that the U.S. was giving military assistance to the Guatemalan army that was carrying out those crimes.

AMYGOODMAN: Let’s turn to the interview you did with then U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth.

STEPHENBOSWORTH: Well, I think the important factor is that there has been, over the last six months, evidence of significant improvement in the human rights situation in Guatemala. Since the coming into power of the Ríos Montt government, the level of violence in the country, politically inspired violence, particularly in the urban areas, has declined rather dramatically. That being said, however, I think it’s important also to note that the level of violence in the countryside continues at a level which is of concern to all. And while it is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute responsibility for that violence in each instance, it is clear that in the countryside the government does indeed need to make further progress in terms of improving its control over government troops.

AMYGOODMAN: You also, Allan Nairn, asked the then-U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth precisely what was the U.S. military presence and role in Guatemala. This is how Bosworth responded.

STEPHENBOSWORTH: We have no military presence or role. We have, as a part of our diplomatic establishment, a defense attaché office and a military representative. But that is the same sort of representation that we have in virtually all other countries in the world. We do not have American trainers working with the Guatemalan army. We do not have American military personnel active in Guatemala in that—in that sort of area.

ALLANNAIRN: There are no American trainers there?

STEPHENBOSWORTH: No.

ALLANNAIRN: None performing the types of functions that go on in El Salvador, for instance?

STEPHENBOSWORTH: No, there are not.

AMYGOODMAN: That was then-U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary for Inter-American Affairs Stephen Bosworth. Respond to what he said, and tell us who he later became, who he is today in the U.S. government.

ALLANNAIRN: Well, first, just about everything that Bosworth said there was a lie. He said that the killings were down. In fact, they increased dramatically under Ríos Montt. He said, quite interestingly, that it was impossible to know and attribute responsibility for what was happening. Well, the Conference of Catholic Bishops had no difficulty knowing and attributing responsibility. They said that the killings have reached the extreme of genocide. They were saying this at the moment that the massacres were happening and at the moment that Bosworth was denying it. And they and the survivors and the human rights groups were all clearly blaming it on the army.

And then, finally, he said that the army has to be careful to maintain control over its troops. Well, there was a very strict control. In fact, the officers in the field in the Ixil zone that I interviewed at the time said they were on a very short leash and that there were only three layers of command between themselves in the field and Ríos Montt. And, in fact, a few weeks earlier, there had been only two layers of command between themselves and Ríos Montt.

Then, Bosworth went on to say that the U.S. was not giving any military assistance to Guatemala, but I guess it was a couple weeks after that interview when we went down to Guatemala, I met a U.S. Green Beret, Captain Jesse Garcia, who was training the Guatemalan military in combat techniques, including what he called how—in his words, "how to destroy towns." This was apart from the weapons and U.S. munitions that I mentioned before, apart from the CIA trainers who were working in the CIA-built headquarters of the G-2, the military intelligence service that was doing the assassinations and disappearances.

AMYGOODMAN: The G-2 being the Guatemalan G-2. Now, today Stephen Bosworth is the dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University. But before that, in 2009, well, he played a key role in the Obama administration.

ALLANNAIRN: Yes, rather than being—you know, in what you might consider to be a normally functioning political system, if a high government official lied like that about matters of such grave, life-and-death importance and was involved in the supply of arms to terrorists, in this case the Guatemalan military, you would expect him at the minimum to be fired and disgraced, or maybe brought up on charges. But Bosworth was actually promoted. And under the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton chose him as the special envoy to North Korea. He’s been in the news a great deal in recent times because of his very prominent role there.

AMYGOODMAN: In 1995, Allan Nairn was interviewed on Charlie Rose about his piece in The Nation called "CIA Death Squad," in which he described how Americans were directly involved in killings by the Guatemalan army. He was interviewed alongside Elliott Abrams, who challenged what he was saying. Abrams had served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from 1981 to 1985. This clip begins with Elliott Abrams.

ELLIOTTABRAMS: Wait a minute. We’re not here to refight the Cold War. We’re here to talk about, I thought, a specific case in which an allegation is being made that—of the husband of an American and, another case, an American citizen were killed, and there was a CIA connection with—allegedly with the person allegedly involved in it. Now, I’m happy to talk about that kind of thing. If Mr. Nairn thinks we should have been on the other side in Guatemala—that is, we should have been in favor of a guerrilla victory—I disagree with him.

ALLANNAIRN: So you’re then admitting that you were on the side of the Guatemalan military.

ELLIOTTABRAMS: I am admitting that it was the policy of the United States, under Democrats and Republicans, approved by Congress repeatedly, to oppose a communist guerrilla victory anywhere in Central America, including in Guatemala.

ALLANNAIRN: —priests—assassinated by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan army. Let’s look at reality here. In reality, we’re not talking about two murders, one colonel. We’re talking about more than 100,000 murders, an entire army, many of its top officers employees of the U.S. government. We’re talking about crimes, and we’re also talking about criminals, not just people like the Guatemalan colonels, but also the U.S. agents who have been working with them and the higher-level U.S. officials. I mean, I think you have to be—you have to apply uniform standards. President Bush once talked about putting Saddam Hussein on trial for crimes against humanity, Nuremberg-style tribunal. I think that’s a good idea. But if you’re serious, you have to be even-handed. If we look at a case like this, I think we have to talk—start talking about putting Guatemalan and U.S. officials on trial. I think someone like Mr. Abrams would be a fit—a subject for such a Nuremberg-style inquiry. But I agree with Mr. Abrams that Democrats would have to be in the dock with him. The Congress has been in on this. The Congress approved the sale of 16,000 M-16s to Guatemala. In ’87 and ’88—

CHARLIEROSE: Alright, but hold on one second. I just—before—because the—

ALLANNAIRN: They voted more military aid than the Republicans asked for.

CHARLIEROSE: Again, I invite you and Elliott Abrams back to discuss what he did. But right now, you—

ELLIOTTABRAMS: No, thanks, Charlie, but I won’t accept—

CHARLIEROSE: Hold on one second. Go ahead. You want to repeat the question, of you want to be in the dock?

ELLIOTTABRAMS: It is ludicrous. It is ludicrous to respond to that kind of stupidity. This guy thinks we were on the wrong side in the Cold War. Maybe he personally was on the wrong side. I am one of the many millions of Americans who thinks we were happy to win.

CHARLIEROSE: Alright, I don’t—

ALLANNAIRN: Mr. Abrams, you were on the wrong side in supporting the massacre of peasants and organizers, anyone who dared to speak, absolutely.

CHARLIEROSE: What I want to do is I want to ask the following question.

ALLANNAIRN: And that’s a crime. That’s a crime, Mr. Abrams, for which people should be tried. U.S. laws—

ELLIOTTABRAMS: Why don’t you—yes, right, we’ll put all the American officials who won the Cold War in the dock.

AMYGOODMAN: That was Elliott Abrams—he served as assistant secretary of state for human rights and humanitarian affairs under President Reagan from ’81 to ’85—debating investigative journalist Allan Nairn on the Charlie Rose show. Actually, Congressmember Robert Torricelli, then from New Jersey, before he became senator, was also in that discussion at another point. Allan, the significance of what Mr. Abrams was saying? He went on, Abrams, to deal with the Middle East.

ALLANNAIRN: Yes. Well, he—when I said that he should be tried by a Nuremberg-style tribunal, he basically reacted by saying I was crazy, that this was a crazy idea that you could try U.S. officials for supplying weapons to armies that kill civilians. But people also thought that it was crazy that Ríos Montt could face justice in Guatemala. But after decades of work by the survivors of his Mayan highland massacres, today, as we speak, Ríos Montt is sitting in the dock.

AMYGOODMAN: Award-winning journalist Allan Nairn, speaking last week before he flew to Guatemala. On Thursday, a landmark genocide trial against former Guatemalan dictator Ríos Montt was suspended after the trial threatened to implicate the current president of Guatemala in the mass killings of civilians. Allan reports Guatemalan army associates had threatened the lives of case judges and prosecutors and that the case had been annulled after intervention by Guatemala’s president, General Otto Pérez Molina. Some of the video footage used in the show comes from a 1983 documentary directed by Mikael Wahlforss. We’ll link to it at democracynow.org and to Allan Nairn’s website, allannairn.org.